Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

ELECTORAL REGISTERS (RETURNS)

Address for Return
showing the total number of electors on the register now in force in each Parliamentary Constituency in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and in each Local Government Area in England and Wales."—[Mr. Oliver.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an Address be presented for a Return showing the total number of electors on the register now in force in each Parliamentary Constituency and in each Local Government Area in Scotland."—[Mr. Thomas Fraser.]

Colonel Gomme-Dunean: Mr. Speaker, could we have a little explanation of this Motion?

Mr. Speaker: Usually these matters are dealt with in a purely formal manner.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: With great respect, Sir, I was hoping that perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland would give us a few words of explantaion.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): If it is necessary, I will say that this is the ordinary routine for the purpose of getting the Return asked for In the Motion. There has never been any occasion in the past either for questions or for debate on the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Could anything be done to heat this Chamber so that we can do our work properly?

Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. and gallant Member's feelings, but it is not within my power to do anything.

Sir T. Moore: Would the Minister of Fuel and Power be able to do anything?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Disputes (Negotiating Machinery)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to improve the machinery of negotiation in industrial disputes, particularly in securing its operation at the beginning of a dispute.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am continuing my examination of and discussions on this problem, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. Shepherd: Would the Minister consider the question of a general inquiry into the whole system? Obviously this does not work very well in many circumstances, and something ought to be done.

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think a general inquiry would be very helpful. It certainly would be very involved. There are about 50 wages councils. We are consulting them collectively and I am meeting their chairman. The trade agreements in the others are very wide in their scope. I hope to get the information and to take it to our advisory council shortly.

Macclesfield and Congleton

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour the registered numbers of unemployed males and females in Macclesfield and Congleton at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Isaacs: At 14th April, 608 males and 24 females at Macclesfield, and 119 males and 6 females at Congleton. The figures for Macclesfield include 513 males and 23 females temporarily stood off at the date of the count, the great majority of whom were working a four-day week.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the fact that when the Minister last gave me


figures there was practically no unemployment at all, will he consult his colleagues to see whether an extra allocation of fuel can be made to try to bring relief to these towns, which are suffering great hardship?

Mr. Isaacs: That will be borne in mind.

Apprentices (Maintenance Grants)

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that school leavers in rural areas are seriously prejudiced by the fact that no provision has yet been made for maintenance grants to apprentices living away from home and that, as a result, the value of pre-apprenticeship training courses provided by education authorities in rural areas has been seriously detracted from; and whether ho proposes to take any action to meet the situation.

Mr. Isaacs: To meet the type of case which the hon. Member has, in mind, a scheme of maintenance grants is being prepared and will, I hope, shortly be put into operation.

Displaced Persons

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour whether displaced persons, including Poles now in the Polish Resettlement Corps, have to submit to political screening before being accepted for employment in British industry: by whom this screening is carried out; arid with what objects.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir.

Major Beamish: How can the Minister say, "No, Sir"?

Mr. Ness Edwards: "No, Sir," is the correct answer to the Question.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that leading members of the miners' union have publicly boasted of the fact that every Pole coming from the Polish Resettlement Corps into the mines must not only be screened by the authorities, but must be screened by them as well and, if he has not been screened by them, he will not be accepted in spite of the wishes of the Government? Is that true?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The answer that I have given is the correct answer, no matter what may be said outside this House.

Major Lloyd: May I have a direct answer to my direct question? Is my statement true or not?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not called upon to answer allegations of that sort. The Question on the Order Paper is whether or not there is any political screening. The answer is "No."

Road Haulage Strike

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the illegal road haulage strike that occurred during the week ended 12th January, 1947, was largely organised and encouraged by the Revolutionary Communist Party, Trotskyist, British Section of the Fourth International; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to minimise the risk of the repetition of an illegal strike organised by a political party for political reasons.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. Although this party may have tried to encourage the strike once it had started, I have no evidence to show that the strike was so organised. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Staggered Working Hours

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the response from industry and the trade unions to the Government's request for staggering working hours.

Mr. Isaacs: Very good, Sir.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of industry has in fact agreed to staggered hours?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, I could not answer that without notice, and even with notice it would be very difficult to give the percentage; but I can say that the answer I have given covers the matter. We have had a very good response from industry.

Mr. Gammans: How can the right hon. Gentleman say "very good" when he cannot give the percentage of the number of industries which have in fact responded? Would he answer that?

Mr. Isaacs: I gave the answer which I did give because I know it is correct, but it is another question to hive the percentages.

National Service Age

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that some firms are dismissing youths from their employ a few months before they are liable to report for national service; and if he will take steps to stop this practice.

Mr. Isaacs: Only a very few complaints have been received during the last few years that young men have been dismissed from their employment because they have become liable to be called up under the National Service Acts. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of the cases he has in mind, I will certainly see what action I can take.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many complaints he has received during the last six months?

Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice, but I cannot recall any.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the growing difficulty of boys under the calling-up age for military service to obtain work; and what steps are being taken to safeguard their interests until they join the Forces.

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware that some boys approaching military age are finding difficulty in obtaining employment. The Juvenile Employment Service will give them all possible assistance in finding suitable work, and I would like to take this opportunity of asking employers of labour to approach this matter with a sense of public obligation.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reason for this is the fear about reinstatement after service, or has it something to do with training, learning and apprenticeships and the fact that employers do not wish to give training to apprentices when they are to be called up for military service so soon?

Mr. Isaacs: We have not had any cases reported to us, but we gather it is -mainly that the employer feels that he does not want to go to the trouble of training a lad for the few months before he leaves.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem will be permanently with us so long as we have permanent conscription?

Mr. Isaacs: It will be permanently with us if employers think of their own convenience instead of that of the country.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say what steps he is taking to safeguard the interests of returning ex-Servicemen as well as those of the men who are going into the Services?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question down, I think we can give him a very satisfactory answer.

Trawler Crews (Trade Unionism)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take over the ultimatum which is being given to some trawler owners that crews will not be allowed to sail unless all join a trade union.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave him yesterday.

Commander Noble: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of the Fleetwood branch of the Transport and General Workers Union has issued such an ultimatum to local trawler owners, and would he like me to give him the information I have?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not so aware, and I would be very grateful if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give me the information.

Miners, Ayrshire

Mr. William Ross: asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners, ex-miners willing to return to the mines and unplaced mining trainees who are registering as unemployed in Ayrshire.

Mr. Isaacs: I am having inquiries made, and will write to my hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: There are other hon. Members for Ayrshire.

Disabled Persons, Scotland

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of disabled persons registered in Scotland under the Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1944; and the number of these at present unemployed.

Mr. Isaacs: On 17th March, 1947, there were 67,899 registered disabled persons in Scotland, of whom 8,123 regarded as


suitable for employment under ordinary conditions were unemployed. There were also 1,355 unemployed needing employment under sheltered conditions.

Mr. Willis: In view of that figure, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the obligations laid upon him by the Act are being honoured? If he is satisfied that they are being honoured, does he not think that the percentage laid down in the Act should be increased?

Mr. Isaacs: I think the figures for the time being are a little bit disturbed by the recent fuel shortage, but I must say that, as far as we know, in the main they are being honoured by employers. Therefore, if increasing the percentage is the only way to deal with it, that will be looked at.

Joiners, Falmouth

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the unemployment among joiners in the Falmouth area, he will consult with the other Departments concerned to provide work in the dockyard.

Mr. Isaacs: I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many ships which require that type of conversion, which employs joiners, and will he take steps to see that they are fairly distributed throughout the ports? Is it not a fact that there is not that degree of unemployment in other ports that there is in Falmouth?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. In the first place, it is no good moving ships about unless you have the timber to do the work. In the second place, having recently had the privilege of visiting the shipyard, I do not think there is any room for any more ships there.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (FISHERMEN)

Mr. Beechman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for all home-water fishermen to receive the same consideration regarding call-up as near and middle-water trawlermen.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The arrangements to which reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 21st April do not apply to near and middle

water trawler men as a class. These arrangements, which are essentially of a temporary nature, provide for the suspension of call-up, for a limited period, of certain individuals, and have been introduced to meet exceptional, and, I hope, transitory difficulties in certain localities. There is no intention of extending them.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Does the Minister know that his answer is entirely unsatisfactory and that this country is in desperate need of food, and will he reconsider this matter in view of the letter which I sent to him yesterday?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, I have the letter which the hon. Member sent me yesterday to which I will send a reply, but every care is taken in these matters. The District Inspector of Fisheries can make representations where any case of this kind requires his attention.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister mean that he will give consideration to this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: I will give consideration to the point raised in the hon. Gentleman's letter, but I will not commit myself further.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Land Court Members (Salaries)

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the salaries paid to the agricultural members of the Scottish Land Court.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): The rate of salary payable to lay members of the Scottish Land Court has been under review in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Advocate; but I am not at present satisfied that any alteration is necessary.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these salaries have not altered since 1911 when they were first fixed, and that they were supposed to correspond roughly with the salaries of top grade Sheriff Substitutes whose salaries have been put up?

Mr. Westwood: I do not admit the latter part of the supplementary question, but it is a fact that the salaries were fixed at the date suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Snadden: is it not a fact that there has recently been a much greater upgrading of the administrative staff in the Department of Agriculture and that now they are paid more than comparable members of the Land Court?

Mr. Westwood: I respectfully suggest that that has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Venereal Disease

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider introducing legislation for the purpose of making venereal disease a notifiable disease under the appropriate-Act.

Mr. Westwood: I am prepared to seek any powers which might help in eradicating venereal diseases, but I am not satisfied that making these diseases compulsorily notifiable would do so.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the constant danger of infection, especially for young children with an infected person in charge of them, will the right hon. Gentleman not at any rate follow the policy adopted in England so as to safeguard our young people?

Mr. Westwood: I shall certainly make inquiries as to what the policy in England is, but I know that this question has been carefully considered from time to time so far as Scotland is concerned, and the balance of opinion has been that compulsory notification might hinder rather than help the campaign which doctors, the Government and the authorities are waging against this disease.

Sir T. Moore: Although the right hon. Gentleman means well, I shall have to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Requisitioned House, Edinburgh

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that 45 Manor Place, Edinburgh, was purchased two years ago by its present owner for the accommodation of the nurses and staff of her nursing home at 49 Manor Place, he will arrange with the Ministry of Works for its immediate derequisitioning.

Mr. Westwood: As I have already explained to the hon. and gallant Member, I appreciate the difficulties of the owner's position, and while it is not possible at

present to release the house, which is still urgently required for office purposes, I have arranged that it will be one of the first to be released by the Ministry of Works when the new office accommodation for Government Departments in Edinburgh is ready.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Government Departments are likely to start occupying, these offices?

Mr. Westwood: I am sorry, but I am not in a position to give a date when they will be ready, but as soon as we have got the temporary accommodation it will enable us to deal not only with this problem but with several other housing problems.

Herring Marketing

Mr. J. J. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made by the Herring Industry Board for the marketing of next season's herring catches; and whether contracts have been completed for the disposal of catches surplus to home requirements to the Control Commission for Germany, including klondyked herring.

Mr. Westwood: The Board propose to purchase the whole of this year's production of cured herring in Scotland and England for disposal to the best advantage. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 30th April to the 'hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).

Mr. Robertson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the assurance given in the first part of his answer, I would like to ask him if he is aware of the keen feelings of concern in the North-East part of Scotland in fishing circles about the fact that a contract has not been reached for the export of klondyked herrings, especially from the Shetland Isles; furthermore, whether representations have been made to him by the Scottish advisory panel with regard to the export of herrings; and what further steps he proposes to take to deal with this urgent matter?

Mr. Westwood: I have had representations made in connection with the difficulties facing the herring industry from many sources, but I could not say without notice exactly what those sources are.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to repeat this year last year's Shetland experiment in the buying and marketing of herrings?

Mr. Westwood: I could hardly give a direct answer to that question without notice, but I would be quite willing to discuss the point with my hon. Friend after Questions, if necessary.

Mr. Alex Anderson: May I ask the Secretary of State if by complete purchase he means purchase at 100s. per cran for freshing, kippering or klondyking, purchase at 85s. per cran for curing, or purchase at 17s. per cran for fish meal and fish oil?

Mr. Westwood: Again, I could not give an answer to that question without notice.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last part of this Question is the really urgent one at present, and that unless there are contracts with the Control Commission the herring industry will be knocked endways this summer?

Mr. Westwood: I am aware of the urgency of the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Teachers (Certificated Status)

Lady Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reach a decision concerning the recognition of uncertificated teachers and what steps are to be taken to assist such teachers to obtain certificated status.

Mr. Westwood: I have consulted the National Committee for the Training of Teachers and have recently received from them proposals for the granting of certificated status on certain conditions to uncertificated teachers of technical subjects employed whole time in pre-apprenticeship schools and other continuation classes. These proposals are being carefully considered in the light of the great variety of subjects and technical qualifications involved.

Lady Grant: Is the Secretary of State aware that much financial hardship and anxiety are being caused to uncertificated teachers who have been waiting for this decision since July, 1946, and that therefore this announcement will be received with great satisfaction?

Mr. Westwood: I am assured that the inquiries I have made, which are known to the teaching profession, will be received with the greatest pleasure by those who at the moment are uncertificated and who may become certificated as a result of the action I am taking.

Juvenile Delinquency.

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures to show whether juvenile delinquency in Scotland is increasing or decreasing.

Mr. Westwood: I am glad to say that the statistics of juvenile delinquency for 1946 show a drop of approximately 15 per cent. compared with 1945 in the number of children and young persons in Scotland against whom charges were proved. The total number in 1945 was 20,244 and in 1946, 17,050.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied with that figure, which still shows over 17,000 juvenile delinquents?

Mr. Westwood: No, I am not satisfied, and consequently I am taking whatever action is available to me with a view to reducing juvenile delinquency still further.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: That is nevertheless a substantial fall. Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired into the reasons for it so as to encourage it further in the same direction?

Mr. Westwood: I have not had time to make the complete inquiries which I think are desirable with a view to finding exactly what are the reasons for the drop that has taken place.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: How do these figures compare with prewar? Are they up much or are they down? What about 1938?

Mr. Westwood: I would require notice of that question so that I could make a fair comparison.

Major Lloyd: Would the Secretary of State say what recommendations resulting from the conference on this subject organised by his predecessor in Edinburgh, at which he. was present, have been pressed by his Department upon the local authorities?

Mr. Westwood: All the recommendations which would be of real service, in dealing with this problem of delinquency, are being pressed to the utmost with a view to reducing still further the numbers to which I have referred.

New Classrooms, Ayrshire

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new classrooms are required in Ayrshire as a result of the raising of the school-leaving age; how many have been provided; and how many are under construction.

Mr. Westwood: 306 classrooms will be required, but only a proportion of these will be required by 1st September. 46 are in course of erection; none have yet been completed.

Sir T. Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the increase in the classes themselves as a result of this legislation?

Mr. Westwood: No, Sir, not without notice.

Legal Aid

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to give effect to the recommendations of the Cameron Committee on Legal Air and Legal Advice in Scotland.

Mr. Westwood: I am in consultation, together with my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, with representatives of the legal profession with a view to the preparation of a scheme of legal aid and legal advice in the light of the recommendations of the Cameron Committee; but I am not vet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Willis: Does the answer mean that my right hon. Friend is accepting the recommendations of the Cameron Committee?

Mr. Westwood: Yes, I am accepting the general principles contained in the recommendations.

Housing Programme

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the effect of the fuel crisis upon the 1947 housing programme for Scotland.

Mr. Westwood: I would ask the hon. Member to await a full statement which

I propose to include in the Housing Return for March which will be available on Thursday.

Fair Isle (Sea Service)

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the dates on which goods and mails have been landed at Fair Isle since the s.s. "Good Shepherd" was wrecked.

Mr. Westwood: The "Good Shepherd" was wrecked on 13th January last. Since that date goods and mails have been landed at Fair Isle on 16th, 23rd and 28th January, 19th February, 13th and 29th March, and goods on 2nd May. Severe weather and prolonged repairs to the steam drifter "Pole Star" have made it difficult to arrange for calls at regular intervals. It is hoped, however, to maintain a fortnightly service from now onwards.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Unemployability

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider making grants of unemployability supplement an appealable issue to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. John Hynd): I do not think it would be in the interests of the pensioners themselves that the present position in which unemployability can be sympathetically reviewed from time to time on merits by my Department should be replaced by an arrangement involving a final decision by a tribunal.

Mr. Wallace: But is the Minister aware that, while I appreciate the extraordinary care and sympathy with which these cases are dealt with, anomalies exist? For instance, a man living in a London suburb, having to carry out administrative work in London, cannot face the extreme difficulties of travel on some of the suburban lines, and therefore I feel this matter should be reviewed.

Mr. Hynd: I do not think the case to which my hon. Friend has referred would be met by the proposal in the Question, but if he will bring that particular case to my notice I will examine it.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Are not the tribunals already overloaded with their ordinary functions, and is it not impossible for them to take on more?

Mr. Hynd: It is not a question of being overloaded; it is a question of what they can do efficiently in the interests of pensioners, and I do not think a final decision by a tribunal is desirable on the question of unemployability.

Staff Dismissals, Blackpool

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of Pensions how many men and women, respectively, have been dismissed, after due notice, from his Department in Blackpool on the grounds of inefficiency since 1st January, 1947; and, of these, how many had been awarded increments of pay during 1946.

Mr. J. Hynd: The figures asked for in the first part of the Question are 41 and 24, respectively. Of these 38 men and 22 women received the normal annual increment during 1946.

Brigadier Low: Is it not rather odd that a man should be given an increment of pay in 1946 on the ground that he is efficient and then, at the beginning of 1947, be sacked on the ground that he has been inefficient for a long time?

Mr. Hynd: Not at all. There are two degrees of inefficiency involved here. The increments are a question of the conditions of service, with which we hesitate to interfere unless there is real inefficiency When it comes to dismissing people on the ground of redundancy of staff, we have to take account of any degree of inefficiency in order to get the least efficient out first.

Brigadier Low: Will the hon. Gentleman see that those who are dismissed on the ground of redundancy are not sent away with a bad reference?

Mr. Hynd: I am not aware that they are, but if that is the case, I will certainly look into it.

Personal Cases

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Pensions when ex-Sergeant Hawkins, Ref. No. M2/272759 will have his case reviewed in the light of the Minister's statement of 25th July, 1946, as promised in his letter of 25th November, 1946, to

both Sergeant Hawkins and the hon. Member for North Wembley.

Mr. J. Hynd: In connection with his application Mr. Hawkins made certain statements regarding medical treatment in North Africa which necessitated protracted inquiries overseas. These have now been completed but I think it is desirable to wait a High Court judgment now pending on a similar case before reaching a decision. In the event of a rejection of his claim Mr. Hawkins will still have the right of reference to the Special Review Tribunal.

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will once again review the application of Mrs. Dorothy Dickinson, of Blackpool, referred to him for a widow's pension; and if he will bear in mind the principle that a pension should be paid where a husband and wife had been estranged but the chance of reconciliation still existed and the husband was killed before there had been a reconciliation.

Mr. J. Hynd: I have this case under consideration, and will write to the hon. and gallant Member about it as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Extra Nourishment

Sir: Ian Fraser asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that extra nourishment is recommended by a consensus of medical opinion for men who have suffered from vitamin deficiencies while prisoners of war and whose eyesight or other faculties have been impaired even after they have finished their normal hospital treatment and have returned to their own homes; and whether he will make arrangements with the Ministry of Food for them to receive what is necessary.

Mr. J. Hynd: Experience has shown that men under treatment in Ministry hospitals for vitamin deficiency diseases require a well balanced high calorie diet which is provided with the addition of vitamin concentrates. On discharge to their homes, after the necessary treatment, such patients do not in general require diet supplements except in certain specified conditions for which provision is already made in the existing regulations of the Ministry of Food. Certain cases require vitamin concentrates which Fan be supplied.

Sir I. Fraser: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread opinion amongst medical men that additional foodstuffs, especially now that we are all on a bad diet, are required by these people for some years, and will he see that they have it?

Mr. Hynd: I am not aware that there is any consensus of medical opinion in that direction. On the contrary, the opinion which I have consulted, and which I understand the Minister of Food on his side has consulted, is unanimously of the decision that I have conveyed, but if the hon. Gentleman can bring me any evidence to the contrary, I shall certainly be glad to examine it.

Sir I. Fraser: Where the patient's own doctor recommends a particular diet, will the hon. Gentleman see that the patient gets it?

Mr. Hynd: Not necessarily, but that, of course, is not for me to decide, and the hon. Gentleman knows the procedure that is followed in such cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Railway Transport Officers

Captain John Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of railway transport officers and their staff employed in each of the London main-line railway stations.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain Crowder: Would it be possible to revert to the peacetime practice of commanding officers and adjutants arranging for moving of their formations without a very large staff of railway transport officers?

Mr. Bellenger: The figures which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT will show that there is not a large staff of railway transport officers. Considering that they had to deal with more than one million inquiries in the first quarter of this year, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will find that the staff disclosed in my answer is very economical.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of railway traffic officers and their staff now employed in the mainline London railway stations are as follow:

Station.
Railway Traffic Officers.
Other Ranks.


Liverpool Street
2
8


Fenchurch Street


London Bridge


Cannon Street


Kings Cross
3
14


St. Pancras


Victoria including Caterham.
3
10


Waterloo
3
15


Charing Cross including Woolwich Arsenal.


Holborn Viaduct


Brookwood


Euston
2
11


Paddington including Marylebone.
2
8


 Addison Road


Windsor


Totals: 18 Stations
15
66

Personal Case

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason 14289339 B.I. Private Yusof, has been refused permission to re-enlist in the Army, in view of the fact that he is medically fit and it not over the age limit.

Mr. Bellenger: I have written to the hon. Member about this case. Private Yusof is above the age limit for a normal Regular enlistment.

Mr. Gammans: Is the Minister aware that according to the man's own Service book the Army have admitted that he is under 30? Is not the real reason why this man is not allowed to enlist because he is of non-European ancestry, and is it not Army policy to exclude British subjects unless they are white?

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member asked about this particular case. I gave a full answer in my letter, and that answer shows that the suggestion he has put to me is not accurate. As for the man's age, my information is that he is above the age limit.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his own Service pay-book, which I hold in my hand, the


Army has admitted that this man is 2g years of age? Is not the real reason something entirely different, which the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to disclose?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know why the hon. Member should continue with that insinuation. If he will show me that Army book 64 I will have a look at it.

Par Beach Minefield

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that no start has yet been made to re-sweep the minefield at Par Beach, Cornwall; and when the special party referred to in his letter of 25th March to the hon. Member for Bodmin will commence operations.

Mr. Bellenger: I regret that it has not been possible to start re-sweeping at Par Beach during April, as had been hoped. The delay has resulted from a shortage of officers, caused by the run-down of the Army, in Bomb Disposal Companies, R.E. The work will be carried out as soon as officers become available. As the hon. Member will be aware, however, the enclosure of the area suspected to contain mines does not prevent access to the beach.

Mr. Marshall: Can the Minister give me a little more satisfactory answer, and some indication that he may be able to have this carried out in May, and is the Minister aware that this matter is very important to our invisible export?

Mr. Bellenger: I will endeavour to do everything I can to give satisfaction, but Par Beach was cleared by United States Army troops, and they believed every mine was cleared. Unfortunately, the local inhabitants have an idea that there are still some mines left there. We have to test that, but unfortunately I have not the officers to do that.

Mr. Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the beach is cleared of mines?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I cannot, but I will do so as soon as I can get the staff to make sure there are no more mines there.

Postings (Publication)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War why he has now decided not to publish information about

the numbers and proportion of men of the Army intake posted to each arm of the Service.

Mr. Bellenger: I have come to the conclusion that to continue to give these particulars periodically in reply to Questions might enable deductions to be made as to the detailed composition of the Army from time to time which it would be contrary to our present policy to divulge.

Me Swingler: In view of the importance to the Army, may I ask first how, in view of the complete blackout on information about the use of manpower in the Army, my right hon. Friend reconciles this step with Parliamentary control over the Army? In the second place, may I ask whether this information will be given, if requested, to the Select Committee on Estimates?

Mr. Bellenger: As regards the last part of the question, that is another matter. In regard to the first part, I think we discussed the matter fully on the Army Estimates, and I do not think I can go any further at the moment in question and answer.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my might hon. Friend aware that he sends a free copy of the Army Estimates to every embassy in London, from which this could be worked out, and also that we are going to have less information in the Army Estimates next year than this year?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know how my hon. Friend knows that. I have not heard that he has been at the War Office and knows what the policy will be. If he is correct in the first part of his question, perhaps he will have a talk with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) who wants the information.

General Sir George Jeffreys: May I ask why it has been considered necessary two years after the war ended to keep these matters practically secret? Why should we not publish them?

Mr. Bellenger: As I have said, we discussed this at length on the Army Estimates, and I then said that for next year's Estimates I would look into the matter to see if we could have a change of policy.

Mr. Swingler: Am I to understand that the Secretary of State has not decided yet


whether he will give the information to the Select Committee on Estimates, or not?

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend asked if I would give it to him, to which my answer is, "No, Sir."

Raynes Park Camp

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now release to the local authority, for housing purposes, the camp at Raynes Park, recently occupied by German prisoners of war, and about which the honourable Member for Wimbledon has had correspondence with him.

Mr. Bellenger: The future of this camp is under consideration at the moment, and I regret that I am not yet able to make any announcement about it.

Mr. Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend send an answer about it very soon, because it is a matter of great urgency to the district, and it is occupied by squatters to the great embarrassment of the local authorities?

Mr. Bellenger: I will do my best to give an early answer.

Reporting Sick

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the current instructions regarding men desiring to report sick; and whether it is in accordance with those instructions that men at 2 P.T.C., Stoughton Barracks, Guildford, have to march to the M.I. room to report sick.

Mr. Bellenger: The current instruction regarding men wishing to report sick is that
soldiers … will not parade for this purpose but will inform the orderly N.C.O. and proceed independently to the M.I. Room at a specified hour.
Arrangements for transport are of course made if the. M.I. Room is at some distance from the unit lines. My information is that these instructions are being carried out in the unit referred to, and that it is not the case that the men have to march to the M.I. Room to report sick.

Mr. Bramall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of my

constituents are stationed in these barracks, and their information is not the same as that of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Bellenger: If my hon. Friend would be good enough to give me any further information he has, I will look into it.

Fornham Park Camp

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War why it has become necessary to recondition and re-equip Fornham Park Camp, Bury St. Edmund's, which has stood derelict for 18 months; what will be the cost of this work; and if there is no barrack or permanent camp more suitable for peace-time military occupation.

Mr. Bellenger: Fornham Park Camp, Bury St. Edmunds is being reconditioned and re-equipped to accommodate a regiment returning from overseas. The camp was evacuated approximately six months ago by Polish Forces when it was certainly not in a derelict condition. The cost of the work being carried out is estimated at £700, and there is no more suitable barrack or permanent camp available at present for the purpose for which it is required.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Could the Minister look again at his answer, because no Polish troops had been there until six weeks ago? In fact, Polish troops in a neighbouring camp were given permission to go and take the stuff out of this camp with the result that the camp is empty. Is it the policy of the Government to allow one part of the Service to take it somewhere else so that money has to be spent to take it back again?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, we do not give that permission to the Polish troops, but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know, sometimes they do not wait for permission.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that general negligence in regard to empty camps only leads to looting and destruction of very valuable equipment?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, that charge of general negligence is unfounded. The fact is that I have not the large number of troops necessary to guard these empty camps.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Government Expenditure, Egypt

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the sums of money spent in Egypt during 1946 and the first quarter of 1947, respectively, by the Foreign Office, the Board of Trade and the British Council.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Since the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Brigadier Mackeson: Will the Chancellor instruct the Foreign Secretary regarding the amount of money for publicity and propaganda in Egypt, because there is a great deal of anti-British propaganda which is not being answered?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the figures and then, if he wishes to address a Question to my right hon. Friend, no doubt he will do so.

Following are the figures:


—
1946.
First quarter of 1947.


Foreign Office
…
£588,000
£132,000


Board of Trade
…
£7,512,000
£2,578,000


British Council
…
£171,392
£34,173

Dollar Purchases (Fruit and Vegetables)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which clauses of the Anglo-U.S. loan agreement compel Britain to expend a portion of the loan on the purchases of fresh fruit and vegetables from the U.S.A.; and what is the amount involved in sterling in this commitment.

Mr. Dalton: There is no such clause, but in arranging our fruit and vegetable imports, we must respect Article 9 of the agreement. These imports from U.S.A. in the first quarter of this year were millions.

Mr. Baker White: Does not the Chancellor think it was a waste to spend over £1,000,000 on buying pears in these three months, and over £228,000 on grapes, many of which were uneatable by the time they reached this country?

Mr. Dalton: I have given the details. They add up, as I informed the hon. Member, to £2,500,000 in the first quarter. I think that fruit is good for you, and I do not accept the statement that the grapes were not in a condition in which they could be consumed. Even if it were true, it is not my responsibility.

Mr. Spence: Would not some of this money have been better spent in buying meat offals which were available, and which were sorely needed to help our meat ration?

Mr. Dalton: I think that the Minister of Food would have an opinion about that.

Merchant Navy (Income Tax)

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether officers and men of the Merchant Navy at sea are given code numbers for Pay As You Earn; or how are the assessments made;
(2) whether officers and men of the Merchant Navy are granted allowances for Income Tax purposes in respect of payments made by them for superannuation, life insurance and mortgages;
(3) whether officers and men of the Merchant Navy are granted any allowances for Income Tax purposes in respect of payments made by them for uniforms.

Mr. Dalton: Seamen are given code numbers under P.A.Y.E.; they are entitled to an allowance for the upkeep of their uniforms, and to the same allowance as other taxpayers for superannuation and the other items mentioned by my hon Friend.

Mr. Janner: Does the code number apply to seamen actually at sea also, or is it only for those on land?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, it applies to all of them.

Japanese Goods (Purchases)

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether agreement has yet been reached with the U.S.A. regarding the financing of purchases by this country of Japanese products.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, but discussions are proceeding.

Mr. Chamberlain: Since the Board of Trade appears to be negotiating with the


United States Commercial Corporation, and the Far Eastern Commission is also concerned in this matter, will the Chancellor say where the final decision will be made, or where the final authority resides in this matter?

Mr. Dalton: That is a question on the elementary principles of Cabinet Government. Ministers co-operate harmoniously, except on very rare occasions, when the Cabinet settles the matter. So far, no disharmony has arisen between my right hon. and learned Friend and myself.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Chancellor aware that there is almost a complete iron curtain so far as information about Japanese economic and commercial affairs is concerned, and will he indicate to the House whether there is likely to be an early settlement of the international exchange rate for the yen? Also, could he place at the disposal of the House some documentation of the activities of this United States Commercial Corporation?

Mr. Dalton: I must have notice of these questions, which do not arise directly out of the Question I have answered.

U.S. Films (Exhibition Receipts)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the sum received annually by the U.S. film industry from exhibition in Great Britain; and to what extent this is set off by receipts of the British film industry from exhibition in the U.S.A.

Mr. Dalton: About £17 million. On the second part of the Question, I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) On 15th April.

Yen (Exchange Rate)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the official rate of exchange for the sterling in Japanese yen as applicable to British troops stationed in Japan.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): 200 yen =£1.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from information at my disposal the local rate is 300—

Mr. McAdam: On a point of Order. Is it permissible for hon. Members opposite to read newspapers in the course of Questions?

Hon. Members: It is Government publication.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: It is not a newspaper. This is Government party propaganda.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members do not appear to be reading the paper, but showing each other the pictures in it which have just been the subject of a Question.

Sir T. Moore: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that from information at my disposal it seems that the real and local exchange rate of the yen is 300 to the £? Therefore, why should our troops out there suffer this further financial hardship, in view of their present uncomfortable situation?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This rate is the military rate, and prices in the canteens are adjusted to it. Arrangements are in hand for troops in that area to receive vouchers which they can use in canteens, and avoid a good deal of the troubles the hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated.

Stamping of Deeds

Mr. David Jones: asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, in consequence of a change by the Inland Revenue Department in the manner in which deeds requiring to be stamped are dealt with in the North-East, a delay of upwards of 14 days is now taking place in the return of such documents, as against 48 hours previously; that such delay is causing great inconvenience to the professional people concerned and to members of the public; and whether he will revert to the former practice employed in connection with these documents.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have written to my hon. Friend about the matter.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a document received back on Saturday morning had been away three weeks for stamping? Does he anticipate that there is to be an improvement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We do regret that here and there is delay. As and when it is pointed out, we do our best to rectify


matters. I am grateful to the hon. Member for having pointed out the delay in this case. We shall see what we can do to avoid delay in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY ORDERS (CHANGES IN LAW)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions for the general adoption in Statutory Rules and Orders of the practice already introduced in some Departments whereby changes in the law are distinguished by special type.

Mr. Dalton: I will draw the attention of Departments to this practice, but I would not require it in all cases. Often the explanatory note makes it unnecessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AUTHORS' ROYALTIES (NETHERLANDS)

Mr. Derek: Walker-Smith asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that British authors have great difficulty in securing the payment of royalties due to them in respect of their books published in the Netherlands; and whether he will make appropriate representations designed to improve the situation.

Mr. Dalton: A Dutch Committee approves contracts and allocates exchange, and I do not think that I could make representations to the Dutch Government against this procedure. But British authors would be wise to make sure, before signing contracts, that their Dutch publishers have made suitable arrangements with this committee.

Mr. Walker-Smith: While I am sure that British authors will take note of the cautionary words of the Chancellor, may I ask if he is also aware that considerable sums of sterling are paid to Holland for the printing of British books by Dutch publishers, and could not some clearing arrangement be made so as to enable payment to be made to the British authors?

Mr. Dalton: We will look into that. Of course it is one of the partial solutions to the book shortage, of which we are all conscious, that a certain amount of printing is done in non-dollar countries, and the books brought over here.

I do not think we would want to disturb that arrangement, but I will look into the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASIC ENGLISH (COPYRIGHT)

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many prosecutions have been instituted by the Stationery Office in respect of breaches of the copyright in Basic English purchased by the Government at the cost of £25.000.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: None, Sir.

Mr. Thurtle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the use of the word "copyright" implies the possibility of infringement? Is he further aware that there is no way in which these ordinary English words, such as Basic English is, can be infringed, and is it not misleading to say that this handsome sum was paid for the copyright?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is so. The word "copyright" has crept into replies, and also into questions on this matter. It is not strictly correct to use the word "copyright" in this connection. Mr. Ogden was not paid for copyright, but for his work in connection with this matter.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this sum of £25,000 is subject to Income Tax or Surtax?

Mr. Glenvil Hail: It was £23,000, not £25,000. I imagine that as it was income to Mr. Ogden it was subject to Income Tax, but if the hon. Member would like an assurance on that point, I will certainly find out, and let him know.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that it is not strictly true to say that Basic English consists only of a list of ordinary English words? It is also a method of using them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — "COAL" (PAPER SUPPLY)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much paper has been put by His Majesty's


Stationery Office at the disposal of the National Coal Board for the purpose of the latter's forthcoming publication, "Coal."

Mr. Glenvil Hall: About eleven tons of paper have been used on the first issue.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman justify, at a time when ordinary newspapers are severely restricted, the use of this Government paper for the portrayal inter alia of pictures of young ladies who, however agreeable in appearance, have remarkably little to do with the output of coal?

Mr. Wilson Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who pays for this paper, and who bears the financial responsibility for this journal, and who will meet any deficit, if there is one?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is issued, I believe, by the National Coal Board. It is only right to say that it has taken the place of a number of house journals which were previously issued by companies. I take it that any loss thereon will be met by the National Coal Board.

Hon. Members: The taxpayer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest to the House that these house journals, the place of which this publication is said to have taken, indulged in the same sort of political propaganda as this publication does?

Major Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the expenditure on this journal is infinitely more justifiable than the expenditure of money and paper on some of the perpetrations which have been inflicted on a long suffering public by the railway companies and the Road Haulage Association?

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it equitable that what he admits to be an officially subsidised paper should compete for advertisements with ordinary commercial publications?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Quite frankly, many of these questions do not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper. The National Coal Board is entitled to issue a monthly journal of this kind, if it is so minded. We must assume that it knows what it is doing, and that it will get good value for a periodical of this kind.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to give notice that in view of the complete inadequacy of the reply, I shall seek the earliest opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Pensions

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the average annual pension paid to each grade of civil servant; is the actual deduction from salary or nominal proportion of salary regarded as contributed towards the pension; and what capital amount invested in Government securities this annual income represents.,

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. The normal Civil Service pension is 1/80th of salary averaged over the last three years of service, for each year of pensionable service, subject to a maximum of 40/80ths. There is also a lump sum additional allowance, payable on retirement, of three times the annual pension. The pensions scheme is non-contributory, but, to build up a fund to provide benefits of the order described, it would be necessary to set aside annually a sum equal to about 18 per cent. of the salaries of established civil servants to accumulate at 2½ per cent. compound interest. At present, the annual cost of these pensions, exclusive of lump payments, is about £13¾ million. A capital sum of £550 million invested, in Government securities, at 2½ per cent. would produce an equivalent income.

Salary Claims

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to give a decision on claims for improved pay for permanent and temporary clerical workers in the Civil Service, in view of the fact that certain of these claims have been under consideration by the Treasury for 10 months, and if he will join with the Civil Service Clerical Association in requesting the Ministry of Labour to refer these claims forthwith to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that consideration of these claims has proved lengthy, owing to the importance of the issues involved, but I expect that a decision will be arrived at before long. Meantime, it would be premature to refer them to arbitration.

Mr. Brown: Could the Financial Secretary, in view of the very long time taken in the consideration of these claims, give us some idea of what interpretation will be placed upon these words "before long"?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has taken a long time, and that is deeply regretted; but it is hoped that within, say, a few weeks, we may be able to have something to say on the matter.

Mr. Brown: I am much obliged.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Electricity Equipment Export

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason he permitted the export of 19 big transformers and two electric power-houses to U.N.R.R.A. during 1947.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): This equipment was supplied in fulfilment of longstanding orders placed as part of the United Kingdom contribution to U.N.R.R.A. It was specially designed for use as emergency plant to provide a temporary and limited power supply in devastated areas pending the re-establishment of normal facilities.

Colonel Hutchison: Does the hon. Gentleman think that, during the demand created in this country for electric equipment, it was wise to send this equipment to Poland at this time?

Mr. Belcher: The Central Electricity Board were consulted on the matter, and they advised that the equipment was not suitable for home use.

British Exports (Quality)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade what inspections are carried out by his Department to maintain the usual high quality of British goods for export.

Mr. Belcher: None, Sir. We attach great importance to maintaining the high quality of British goods for export, but do not consider that a system of inspection such as my hon. Friend appears to envisage would be practicable.

Mr. Haire: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many foreign firms who are buyers of our goods have expressed concern at the poor quality of certain British goods that have been delivered?

Mr. Belcher: I have heard it suggested that some poor British goods are being exported, but I am quite satisfied from by own knowledge that the vast majority of the British goods exported are of the very highest quality.

Furniture (Wood Allocation)

Mr. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the totals of home grown and imported hardwood allocated to the furniture manufacturing industry in the first quarter of 1947 as compared with the same period last year; and what steps are being taken to augment the supply in the near future.

Mr. Belcher: About a quarter of the total hardwood allocated for all purposes in each of the two periods mentioned was allocated to domestic furniture. The total quantity available for allocation was, however, reduced by some 25 per cent. in Period I of 1947, as compared with the corresponding period of 1946. Home grown and imported hardwoods are not separately allocated. Every possible step is being taken to secure maximum supplies of all types of hardwood, including furniture dimension stock.

Mr. Haire: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since July last year the cut in the allocation of hardwoods to the timber industry has been 60 per cent.? Can he assure the House that his Department is taking a long-term view of this, to avoid any recurrence of the present bottleneck?

Mr. Belcher: Nobody regrets the very great cuts that have had to be made in hardwood for the furniture industry more than I, and we are doing everything in our power in every part of the world to secure hardwood.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the reduction of which he spoke was entirely in the imported programme, or partly in imported


and partly in home grown; and, if entirely in imported wood, from which countries the wood came, the supply of which was cut?

Mr. Belcher: It would be impossible to say that. It was, in any case, a cut in the allocation to the furniture industry, whether imported or home-grown timber.

Mr. Nally: In view of the regret he has expressed at the shortage would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain on what policy his Department last year granted a licence to a football pool firm for a large number of desks that involved the use of hard wood?

Mr. Belcher: I am afraid that that is an entirely different question.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, as a result of the steps he is taking, there is good hope that there will be hard wood available for the furniture industry this year?

Mr. Belcher: I should not like to hazard a guess. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, discussions are taking place at the moment, and I should not like to anticipate the result of the discussions, or prejudice them by anything I say here.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman doing all he can to encourage the use of homegrown silver birch, which is much used on the Continent but not much in this country?

Films (Renters' Quota)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to abolish renter's quota in regard to British films; and on what grounds he bases his decision.

Mr. Belcher: A decision has not yet been reached on the question whether a renter's quota should or should not be retained in the new cinematograph films legislation.

Perambulators

Mr. Monslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the acute shortage of perambulators in the township of Barrow-in-Furness; and if he will arrange to increase the supply.

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade the

number of perambulators allocated to the trade in Beccles, Suffolk; and how this number is related to the birth rate of that town.

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the: President of the Board of Trade how many perambulators does he estimate will be manufactured in this country during the next six months.

Mr. Belcher: I regret that there is still a general shortage of prams, but despite an uneven flow of components due to the fuel crisis, and a reduction in raw material allocations, which will affect output in the latter part of the year, we estimate that some 300,000 prams will be produced during the next six months. Supplies of prams are distributed as fairly as possible throughout the country, but I will have specific inquiries made into the position in the two towns to which reference is made.

Mr. Evans: Has the allocation of perambulators any relationship to the birth rate?

Mr. Belcher: I do not know whether the birth rate in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is higher than it is anywhere else, but I think I have indicated that we are having inquiry made into the position.

Mr. Monslow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increased birth rate is the result of the higher standard of civilisation and of the greater measure of security due to the Labour Government?

Mr. Belcher: I have my own ideas as to the reason for the increase of the birth rate, but I do not know that I care to state them in this House.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is reference to two towns in the answer, but that it is really only one town, which apart from a slight slip at the last election, is one of unimpeachable integrity?

Mr. Belcher: I have tried to answer three Questions together, and two of the Questions refer to a specific shortage in two towns.

Mr. John Paton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is also some shortage at Norwich? When dealing with the question of components, will he look into the use of aluminium as a substitute for steel, which is so short?

Paper Supplies, Italy

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Italian book-printing industry has experienced a remarkable revival; and whether he will render it possible for us to import paper from Italy as being a soft currency nation, or conversely, send our book printing orders to be executed in Italy.

Mr. Belcher: I am not aware that any substantial quantity of paper is available from Italy, but any paper which is imported from any source must form a part of the total supplies for all purposes and would be allocated accordingly. We are always prepared to consider on their merits applications by book publishers to send part of their quota overseas for printing, but if the books are to be subsequently imported into this country the importer must comply with any restrictions on the import of books which may be in force.

Mr. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say, in view of the fact that Italy is a soft currency country like ours, where she is getting these big supplies of paper from, which we cannot get?

Mr. Belcher: I am afraid I cannot without notice.

Mr. K. Lindsay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nothing in regard to Italy will make up for giving the lowest priority of coal for paper production? Has he yet read Sir Stanley Unwin's letter in "The Times"?

Mr. Belcher: I have read Sir Stanley Unwin's letter in "The Times." It is not true that paper production has the lowest priority for coal.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is the hon. Gentleman going to do anything about this urgent question of coal for paper production?

Mr. Belcher: I am most anxious to do all I can to encourage the production of paper, and when, in due course, we come to debate the subject in this House, I think it will be found that paper for book publishing has a very high priority.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL RESTRICTIONS (RELAXATIONS)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Fuel and

Power whether he can now make a statement regarding the relaxation of the Control of Fuel (Restriction of Heating) Order, 1947.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Yes, Sir. After further consultation with representatives of the women's organisations and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has issued a licence permitting the use of a gas or electricity for heating residential premises in so far as it is necessary for the health of children under the age of three and old persons over the age of 70. I would also remind the douse that gas and electricity may be used for heating when a certificate is given by a registered medical practitioner that it is necessary in the interests of health of any person. The licence which my right hon. Friend has issued also permits the use of gas or electric heating for the drying of wearing apparel and household linen and for drying premises affected by floods. I am satisfied that in this way we are providing for the reasonable needs of all.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think these licences are issued under Section 6 of the Order. Can the Minister say in what form this licence has been issued, and whether it would require any further action by those benefiting from it?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir; no further action.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what effect his right hon. Friend the Minister considers it will have on the saving of coal?

Mr. Gaiskell: No, Sir, but I do not think the number of persons affected in this way is very large. I do not think, therefore, that the effect will be as great as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to imply.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister consider issuing licences for the period when the temperature falls below a certain figure?

Mr. Gaitskell: As was explained in the Debate, my right hon. Friend has power, of course, to issue licences, and, as the hon. Member no doubt knows, has taken advantage of that power temporarily to postpone the introduction of the Order in Scotland.

Mr. Stephen: But will the Minister not consider issuing licences that will apply automatically?

Mr. Eden: May I ask what is meant by the last words of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, when he talked about "meeting the reasonable needs of all"? Surely he must know that, however welcome this remission is, reasonable needs must mean much hardship on the public?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not because I do not want to answer that I did not rise, but because you, Mr. Speaker, had called another hon. Member. I would only say that I do not consider that this Order imposes hardship. It may impose some discomfort, and I made it perfectly plain in the Debate that that was, unfortunately, inevitable, but I think the measures taken are quite reasonable and dispose of any charge that they impose hardship.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in the case of those over 70 years of age, in regard to the concession allowing them to have heat from electric fires, what happens in the case of a man and his wife when the husband only is over 70?.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think it might be reasonably supposed in that case that the greater includes the lesser.

Sir I. Fraser: With regard to the licence for wet clothes, is this a general licence enabling everybody with wet clothes to use heat to dry them at their own discretion?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. It is a general licence, and, when the hon. Member reads it, I think he will find that it is perfectly clear that, when it is necessary to use electricity for the purpose of drying clothes, it may be used.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Minister if he will. from time to time, make a statement showing the saving in fuel brought about by these measures?

Mr. Gaitskell: As far as it is possible to do so, that will be done.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: The hon. Gentleman says that there will be licences for drying out flooded houses. Will he look into the cases where people have been fined for drying out flooded houses?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly, if the non. and gallant Member will give me particulars.

Mr. Alpass: May I ask my hon. Friend if he is aware that there was a large fire burning in the Prince's Chamber about an hour ago, and who gave the licence for that?

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that his statement will give great satisfaction to children of the age of three years, who will look forward to being warm again when they reach the age of 70?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will tell us what are the Government's intentions regarding the Business for today, in the event of the Motion on the Order Paper being carried?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Government hope to make good progress in Committee on the National Service Bill today, which is the first of the three days which have been allotted to the Committee stage of the Bill. We desire also to obtain the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning (No. 2) Money Resolution, as well as the similar Resolution for Scotland. It is proposed to report Progress on the National Service Bill at a reasonable hour, to enable us to obtain the other Business

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that, since the National Service Bill was introduced into the House and passed its Second Reading, with the full support of the Opposition, very important changes have been made, affecting in various directions the whole character and scope of the Measure. We are supporting this Measure, and our support will be real, in order to get it through, but we do not know exactly where we stand at the moment, and it would seem to be necessary that some statement should be made from the Government Front Bench by the Minister responsible, either today or tomorrow. I am not putting this in a hostile way at all, because I am desirous to assist the Government to get this great principle of national service established. At the same time, we must have some information on what is the attitude of the Government and how they propose to handle


the matter for the general convenience of the House. A very important statement is undoubtedly required from the Government.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman has put his point, if I may say so, very reasonably and properly. Of course, I have no knowledge of what Amendments will or will not be called by the Chair, but it looks to us as if the Amendment substituting 12 for 18 months should be reached quite early today. There is not a great deal that is of a contentious character in front of us, and, if that is so, we should hope to dispose of that Amendment before the Sitting is concluded today. I agree that it depends upon how we progress, though we have allowed three clays for the Committee stage, which is not, I think, ungenerous. With regard to the point about a Government statement, I think it is a perfectly reasonable request, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will make a complete and what he conceives to be an adequate statement when he moves this Amendment, so that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman will be fully met.

Mr. Churchill: I do not think it would be very satisfactory if what is practically a new Bill were announced later this evening, and that we should then have to decide on that matter tonight. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, who has just entered the House, is to make this important speech —after all, it is important, because it means a totally different outlook on our defence considerations—we cannot be expected to vote on it tonight.

Mr. Callaghan: Why not?

Mr. Churchill: What a typical question. Because we have not had time to consider the great change proposed. Therefore, while we should welcome a statement from the Minister of Defence tonight, we strongly object to taking a decision on this new matter, until' we have had some time to consider it, namely, by tomorrow. Is that an unreasonable request?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot agree that this Amendment makes this Measure a new Bill. I agree that it is an Amendment of substance and of real importance, but such an Amendment does not make the Bill a new Bill. The intention of the Government to move the Amendment, if I recall it rightly, was announced just

before the Easter Recess. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not need long then to issue a statement pronouncing upon the merits of the Amendment. If he was so ready then to pronounce on it, I should have thought that he would have been ready to do so tonight, after the speech of my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not think it would be unreasonable, in view of the time which has elapsed and during which hon. Members could, undoubtedly, think about the important issue of policy involved, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence should make his statement today, explaining the reason for the Government's change of attitude, and that the House, after several hours of Debate, which I hope will follow, should be ready to come to a decision.

Mr. Churchill: I did not say that this made it a new Bill; I said it tended in the direction of making it a new Bill. Here was a plan, if I may submit it to the right hon. Gentleman, which we were told was absolutely necessary to maintain our position abroad, and which had been worked out for months. Within 48 hours it has been changed to another plan, which may also be explained by the Minister of Defence to be a solution. It is obviously quite different. Surely, we are not going to have a statement from the Minister of Defence, whose position is much called in question, without having at least—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Not so much "Order." We must have at least from today till tomorrow to consider what attitude we are to adopt. We are giving loyal support to the Bill. Even if it is altered in a way of which we do not approve, we shall still endeavour to carry it to the Statute Book in the national interest. Therefore, we have some right to decent consideration. I should protest against a decision on the question of the 18 months versus 12 being taken tonight, and I shall use every Parliamentary means to make sure that it is not taken tonight.

Mr. Morrison: I hope I have not been guilty of stirring up trouble. I should not wish to do that. If I may say so, I think that the right hon. Gentleman's latest observations provide some admirable raw material for a speech which, I have no doubt, he will make later in the Debate, but I do not think I ought now to enter into a controversy on those lines. I am dealing solely with Business.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman treat the House a little more seriously in this matter? Irrespective of whether this is a new Bill or not, and irrespective of this perpetual clowning between the Front Benches, this is a matter which affects the lives of all young men in this country. A most important change of policy has been announced, and we are expecting, and eagerly awaiting, some explanation in detail from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, but, so far, it has not been forthcoming. May I appeal to the Leader of the House to give some opportunity to the House, of Commons to consider at length, and with proper discussion, that statement when it comes, instead of trying to rush it through without any Debate on it?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will make a statement which he believes to be, and which we anticipate will be accepted by the House as, an adequate statement, when he moves the Amendment. We hope that the Amendment will be moved at a reasonably early hour. After that, Debate will ensue for what we think will probably be an adequate time, and then the Committee can reach a decision. I should have thought that, if the Committee gets my right hon. Friend's statement, and then has an opportunity for adequate Debate, all reasonable claims would be met.

Mr. Churchill: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to closure the Debate on this Measure—on which we are supporting the Government in all the main principles—and if so at what hour tonight? Is that the way he proposes to treat us, because, in that case, I think we must reconsider our general position?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speakerrose—

Mr. Churchill: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of Order. Could I not be permitted, before you close this matter, to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House? I may say, Sir, on this point of Order, that I am most anxious to economise time on this Measure, if we are treated in a decent way.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is really assuming that the Committee is going to be subjected to tyrannical treatment, which is quite unrealistic. So far, I have not mentioned the word "Closure." It is a word that I would not use if I could help it. The Minister who gets nearest to using that word is my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip. I suggest to the House that we should see how we get on. Let us try to be reasonable about it. We have given three days to the Committee stage of the Bill, which is not ungenerous, and I should have thought that, if reasonable time were given for the Debate on the matter, that would meet the case. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we, on our side, will try to be reasonable on any question of moving the Closure. Let us hope it does not arise.

Mr. Churchill: With great respect, and with the indulgence of the House, I, as the Leader of a party which is supporting this Measure, and which is taking a full share of the unpopularity of this Measure, would respectfully suggest that it would be better if this main issue of the 18 versus 12 months was not concluded tonight.

Mr. Stephen: In view of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, will the Government not abandon this rotten Bill altogether?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided; Ayes, 281; Noes, 148.

Division No. 182.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McAllister, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. La T


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.


Allighan, Garry
Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGovern, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Ewart, R.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fairhurst, F.
McKinlay, A. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Austin, H. Lewis
Field, Captain W. J
McLeavy, F.


Awbery, S. S
Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Ayles, W. H.
Forman, J. C.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W


Balfour, A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mann, Mrs. J


Barton, C.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Battley, J. R.
Gallacher, W,
Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Belcher, J. W.
Gibbins, J.
Mellish, R. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gilzean, A.
Messer, F.


Benson, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Berry, H.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Monslow, W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grey, C. F.
Montague, F.


Blyton, W. R.
Grierson, E.
Moody, A. S.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mort, D. L.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Moyle, A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gunter, R. J.
Mulvey, A-


Bramall, E. A.
Guy, W. H.
Murray, J. D


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nally, W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, W. G.
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hardy, E. A
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Haworth, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oldfield, W. H.


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T


Burke, W. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Callaghan, James
Hewitson, Captain M
Palmer, A. M. F


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hicks, G.
Parker, J.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, B. T.


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
House, G.
Pearson, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Hoy, J.
Peart, Capt. T. F


Coldrick, W.
Hubbard, T.
Piratin, P.


Collindridge, F.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Price, M. Philips


Comyns, Dr. L.
Irving, W. J.
Proctor, W. T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A
Pryde, D. J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.


Corvedale, Viscount
Jay, D. P. T.
Ranger, J.


Crawley, A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Crossman, R. H. S
Jager, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dagger, G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Daines, P.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dalton, Rt Hon. H.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kenyon, C.
Sargood, R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
King, E. M.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Scott-Elliot, W.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirby, B. V.
Sharp, Granville


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lang, G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Delargy, H. J.
Lavers, S.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Diamond, J.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J J
Skeffington, A. M.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Dodds, N. N.
Leslie, J. R.
Skinnard, F. W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Durbin, E. F. M
Logan, D. G.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Dye, S.
Longden, F.
Solley, L. J.


Edelman, M.
McAdam, W
Sorensen, R. W.




Soskice, Maj. Sir [...]
Thurtle, Ernest
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Sparks, J. A.
Tiffany, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Stamford, W
Timmons, J.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Steele, T.
Titterington, M. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Tolley, L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stross, D[...]r. B.
Viant, S. P.
Willis, E.


Stubbs, A. E
Walkden, E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Swingler, S.
Walker, G. H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Woodburn, A.


Symonds, A. L.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Woods, G. S.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Warbey, W. N.
Wyatt, W.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watson, W. M.
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Weitzman, D.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)



Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
West, D. G.
Mr. Simmons and


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Haughton, S. G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Pickthorn, K.


Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O


Beechman, N. A.
Hollis, M. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ramsay, Major S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bower, N.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jennings, R.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Byers, Frank
Keeling, E. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Carson, E.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Savory, Prof. D L


Challen, C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Scott, Lord W.


Channon, H.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Snadden, W. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Davidson, Viscountess
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, S. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Taylor, C S (Eastbourne)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C.
MacLeod, J.
Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon, Harold (Bromley)
Touche, G. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wadsworth, G


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Walker-Smith, D


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fox, Sir G.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gage, C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C (Torquay)


Gammans, L. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)



Grant, Lady
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.
Major Conant and


Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Studholme.


Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)
Nutting, Anthony



Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confine the operation of the National Service Acts to male British subjects and to service in the armed forces of the Crown; to make provision as to the terms and conditions of such service and as to the period for which those Acts shall continue in operation; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in consequence of the passing of that Act by the Minister of Labour and National Service, a Secretary of State or the Admiralty and of any increase consequential on the passing of that Act of the expenses payable under Section nineteen of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944.".

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Eden: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Before you call the first Amendment, could we have some guidance as to your intentions in regard to grouping Amendments, or anything of that kind? That would be of assistance to the Committee.

The Chairman: It is not usual to do that, of course, but I shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman what information I can, as far as the first page or two of the Order Paper are concerned, although I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) already has that information.

Mr. Clement Davies: Would not it be convenient for all hon. Members to know it? Could not you announce it now for the convenience of all?

The Chairman: It is not the practice to announce selected Amendments beforehand. If the right hon. and learned Member or anyone from his party would inquire, I should be very happy to give what information I can, without prejudice lo any subsequent decision. I cannot do more than that. I propose to call the

Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles), and then I may perhaps go so far as to say that as at present advised it is proposed to take the territorial Amendments, if I may so term them, together.

Mr. Churchill: Do I understand, Major Milner, that you propose to take the three territorial Amendments together instead of separately?

The Chairman: I merely propose that the discussion on all five, not three, should take place in the same Debate. There will be opportunities for separate Divisions on separate Amendments, if that is desired.

Mr. C. Davies: Would it be convenient to make our representations to you with regard to that now or wait until you call them? We should like to make some representations in that regard.

The Chairman: I think they had better be made either privately or when we come to the point at issue.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I should like to call your attention Major Milner to the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross): In Clause 1, page 1, line 11, to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "United Kingdom." Supposing it is decided on the previous Amendment—in Clause 1, page 1, line 11, to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "England"—that the words "Great Britain" shall stand part, might not a difficulty arise? Therefore would it not be better if my hon. Friend and those supporting him, including myself, handed in a manuscript Amendment—in case the words "Great Britain" stand part—to this effect: "After Great Britain' to insert and Northern Ireland'"? We want to get a separate Division on that point.

The Chairman: I do not think my decision on these matters is in the least arguable but I appreciate that point made by the right hon. Gentleman, and if the Committee decide that the words "Great Britain" should stand part, I see no reason why the hon. Member should not submit to me a manuscript Amendment dealing with the question of Northern Ireland. I do not think I can be asked to say more than that.

CLAUSE 1.—(Liability to be called up for service.)

Mr. Ayles: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "eighteen," and to insert "twenty-one."

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Do you not intend to call the first Amendment on the Order Paper?—in page 1, line 9, after "subject," to insert:
except the only son of a widow living with and supporting his mother.
I submit to you, respectfully, that is a point of very great importance, in view of the experience of many hon. Members during past years.

The Chairman: I was not proposing to select that Amendment. In the first place, it is not in the right place, and in the second place the point is dealt with in a new Clause, and I have so advised the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), whose name is the first of those down to the Amendment.

Mr. Ayles: Everything comes to those who wait and I hope it will not be long before we see the end of the Bill. There are three main arguments for the Amendment I have just moved. There is the argument from the standpoint of the lads who will be conscripted; the argument from the standpoint of the country, and the argument from the standpoint of industry. I think I can put the arguments in each case in very brief form. If we take a lad and put him in the Army, we should at all events not take him until he has a fair idea of everything that is involved in the great thing he is to be asked to do. While some lads of 18 are fairly mature, generally speaking, lads of 18 are in anything but a settled state of mind. Their thoughts and emotions are disturbed, their moral and religious convictions are still in a state of development. In that stage, a lad needs all the freedom he can get in the normal atmosphere of the home and in society, in order that ultimately he may be able to find his feet. Instead of that, we take him and put him in the Army, subject him to rigid discipline and to a new servility which often leads to sterility of achievement. Discipline is good, but it should be self-discipline. Obedience is good, but it should be willing obedience. Otherwise, it is slavery. In this Amendment I ask that adolescents of 18 should not be

placed in the Army under rigid Army discipline, but that at least three more years should be given to them to get more settled in their ideas and convictions, so that they may be better able to meet the emergencies and temptations of their new lives.
My second argument is from the standpoint of the country. Parliament has decided that the lad of 18 is not a fit and proper person to be allowed the franchise. He lacks experience; he lacks knowledge; he lacks understanding, and he lacks judgment. But the Bill imposes on these lads the most terrible responsibility that they will ever have to face during the whole of their lives. It is a responsibility that has to be carried out by methods which will have to be completely unlearned when they return to civilian life. I want to submit that that is a bad interruption to their lives. In my opinion those three extra years enable a lad to differentiate between the ethics of society and those of war which are, in many respects, opposed to one another. This country is not in need of automatons turned out by a drill sergeant. It is in need of men who have minds that are fresh, and who are full of initiative and adventure.
My third point is that the additional three years in industry will prevent a great deal of hardship if we allow an apprentice to finish his apprenticeship without interruption. I understand that if a lad is indentured the Minister proposes to give him certain opportunities for deferment. In my own trade—engineering—the indenture has almost faded out. A lad with initiative and spirit will often serve seven years under two or three employers. I myself had three employers during my seven years. When one is indentured one is indentured to a person, but when one is apprenticed, one is apprenticed to a trade, and the greater the amount of experience one can obtain in the seven years with regard to the trade the better. The lad himself is all the better for it, and to break into his apprenticeship and prevent him from consolidating his knowledge and skill is bad from the standpoint of industry. Every engineer will confirm that the last three years of a lad's apprenticeship are the most important. To break into that at 18 and condemn the lad to a year of discontinuous employment under military discipline will be the greatest deterrent to the resumption of steady and continuous work which


depends upon a man's own volition. So far as his trade is concerned—especially in the precision engineering industry— he will have become so much out of touch with his tools as to have to start all over again. That means frustration for the lad and waste to industry to say nothing of loss to his employers. If we are to have conscription then let us have it in a way which does as little harm as possible to the men upon whom it is imposed, to the country which allows it to be imposed, and to the economic system upon which the life of our people depends.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: ; I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will not accept this Amendment. The Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles), submitted three tests the interests of industry, the interests of the young man concerned, and the interests of the country. Although I should put the interests of the country first, I agree that these are the right three tests, but perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I first protest against the insult to our young men and women which was implied in a certain sentence of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He seemed to indicate that those who had been called up at the age of i8 since 1939, and had done their service, had become automatons. That has not been our experience on this side of the House. I am not now arguing whether or not compulsory military service is, on balance, a blessing or boon, but it gives a totally unjust picture of the young men of this country to suggest that their recent experiences have turned them into automatons. If the age of i8 is chosen as the age for performing the duty of preparing oneself for the defence of the country there is really no reason whatever to suggest that they will lose in the qualities of initiative or self-reliance. I think it is the greatest pity that such language should have been used.
I protest also against the insult to the Service which was implied in another of the hon. Gentleman's sentences. Nobody could accuse me of being a particularly military figure, but I had the honour to serve in the Army during the war and it is a totally grotesque and perverted picture of military discipline and service which the hon. Gentleman has sought to put forward. To those who experience it it is a noble thing to undergo discipline. May I say this to the hon. Gentleman?

Although we should all admit that self-discipline is the best kind of discipline some of us have learned a certain amount by being disciplined by others. Hon. Members opposite may think that they do not need it, but others who observe them from outside may form a different conclusion. To regard the discipline of the modern Services as something rigidly imposed and producing automatons shows that hon. Gentlemen opposing various portions of this Bill are living in the past. That is not a picture of the modern Services. It is, in fact, a grotesque caricature and distortion of the truth.
I turn now to the three interests which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. First, the interest of the young man himself. I represent a constituency which, although not a university is a university town, and although we are much wiser than the constituents of the Burgesses, we do take a certain interest in the affairs of the university in the city of Oxford. I venture so say, with some assurance, on these matters that if this Amendment were carried, the very first thing that would happen would be that nearly all the learned bodies in this country responsible for university education would immediately protest to the Government and ask that the original figure should he reinstated in the Bill in another place. I know that some hon. Members think that those who either deserve or receive—and I make no point about that—a university education, are not worthy of attention, but I think that in a democracy the needs and requirements of universities in relation to national service, are among the very first considerations we should have in mind in a Measure of this kind. I venture to submit that the interests of the lad—properly safeguarded as they are in this Bill in the case of apprenticeship— would be totally disregarded in the case of those desiring to enter the universities, should this Amendment be carried.
Then we come to the interests of the country. I understand the specious and attractive character of the argument which tries to establish a connection between the privilege and right of voting, and the privilege and duty of serving one's country in time of war. None the less, I consider that the argument is a misleading one. Both are obligations which come to all of us should we reach maturity. The exact age, whether it be


18 or 21, is a matter partly of tradition and partly of convenience, and while it applies equally to us all, there can be no necessary or immediate relaxation of the date upon which one obligation is imposed rather than the other. If there is an argumènt to be drawn from that I should have thought it would be that the convenient date at which to confer the right and duty of voting would be that at which the military service obligation had been faithfully performed in time of peace. I should however prefer to say that this is a question which must be determined in the light of experience and of practical considerations. So far as I can see, the practical considerations and the experience in recent years indicate that the first stages of preparation for military service can be properly undertaken at the age of 18. Nothing is gained and probably a good deal is lost, both from the point of view of the young man and of the country, by postponing an obligation which has in any event to be undergone.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman put forward the interests of industry. I do not claim to be a great expert upon industry, but I do present to the Committee the argument that the directly opposite conclusion, to that which the hon. Gentleman sought to advance, is true. Is it better to break off a lad's career after he has become safely engaged upon some trade, industry or profession—after he has already made a start in it—or, on the whole, before he has done so? Those of us who, in the last war, had to break off our careers in the early 20's to perform this sacred obligation, learned to our cost how very fatal to our prospects that can be. If we consider the interests of industry, which must have a proper supply of people to serve it, and the interests of the young men and of the country, I am convinced that 18 and not 21 is the proper age.

Mrs. Ridealgh: I support the Amendment. The State recognises that at the age of 21 a young man is capable of exercising a vote and forming a judgment on national affairs. If the State is not prepared to recognise the capabilities of a young man before that age, it should not require him to be conscripted for national service before that age. Furthermore, it is not carrying out

the principles of democracy, because it the State is seeking, by compulsion, to take away part of a young man's life, he ought to have some say in the matter, and that will not be the case if this Bill goes through in its present form. At the age of 21, the young man is not only more mature in his judgment, but has greater stamina, and will, therefore, be better able to stand up to the rigorous training which seems to be accepted as the standard for the modern Army. This rigorous training seems to me to be inevitable, if these young men are to he fully trained within 12 months.
In the Bill, we agree to the granting of deferments to students, taking up university careers, and to indentured apprentices. These deferments are important and very necessary, but I suggest that the completion of all training, whether indentured or otherwise, is just as important. Skilled craftsmen in the engineering industry are agreed—and this applies to any other industry—that continuity in training of apprentices is extremely important. They say that' if an apprentice breaks off in the middle of his training, even for one year, his training will be adversely affected. Where this happens, a man is often put back years before he can reach the high standard of skill which is necessary in a highly mechanical industry like engineering. Experienced craftsmen are firmly of the opinion that what counts most in bringing out the mechanical aptitude, which is so important to the engineering industry, is the groundwork carried out during the years of apprenticeship. If that training is broken, it is likely to make it extremely difficult for a man to pick up where he left off.
Again and again we are being told that the world markets will soon be buyers' markets and not sellers' markets, and that we in this country are dependent on exports to keep up our standard of living. One of the greatest assets, in marketing these exports, will be the skill and craftsmanship of our producers. What happens to a young man when he goes into the Forces? The methods adopted in the Forces, in planning the whole life of the individual conduce to taking away his sense of responsibility. The Services arrange what he shall do, how he shall do it, and when he shall do it. They feed him, clothe him, and even provide him with his amusements and attend to his dependants. There is little left on which he


can think for himself. So he tends to become slipshod and careless, with a consequent loss in pride of craftsmanship. The skill and aptitude of the individual is also lost, unless he happens to have retained a certain—

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Lady will address her remarks to the point before the Committee, namely, whether the age should be 18 or 21.

Mrs. Ridealgh: I am trying to point out that breaking-off training at the age of 18 will affect not only the individual, but the interests of the country. It was from that angle that I was endeavouring to put forward my argument. I know that I have painted a black picture, but I know that what I have said has been only too true in the case of those who had their training broken in the past. Not only have the lads regretted the breaking of their training, but so have the experienced craftsmen who helped to train them, and they are very unhappy about the present situation. There should be no hesitation, on the part of trade unionists, in demanding that the age be increased from 18 to 21. It is in the interest of trade unionists, and in the interests of industry generally, and I hope that we shall have the support of all the trade unions on this Amendment.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I think it would he to the advantage of the Committee, if at this stage I indicated the views of the Government. The Government do not propose to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) put up his reasons for this Amendment, under three heads, most of which were answered adequately by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It is apparent that the hon. Member for Southall has not realised that deferment is not restricted to indentured apprentices, but also covers non-indentured apprentices, and, what is more important, those who are called just "learners," who have not the privilege of being apprentices, but are being taught a trade. All who are going through a course of instruction for a trade, or who are going up to the universities, shall have the right to ask for deferment.

Mr. Braddock: Will the Minister indicate who is going to be affected under these conditions?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member had waited to hear what I am about to say,

there would have been no need to ask that question. I was making clear what was already indicated on Second Reading, that any apprentice, learner, or student going up to a university, may himself make application for his service to be postponed until after his training has been completed. Therefore, there is no question of the employer having the right to say "I want this lad deferred." It is the right of the young lad himself to ask for deferment. The Government, on their part, will want satisfaction that there is not only a bona fide apprenticeship, but a bona fide opportunity for a lad to learn a trade. In my own experience, I know of firms which have taken on four or five lads as apprentices. I know of one firm in South London which claimed to teach lads how to be compositors. This firm had one journeyman and six apprentices, and was not really teaching the lads anything. Such lads cannot claim to he deferred, nor can a firm claim for them, unless we are satisfied that there is real opportunity for the lads to learn their trade, and not be exploited as cheap labour—

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I understand that apprenticeship covers 5 per cent. of the workers. The right hon. Gentleman has now introduced the word "learners." Can he define what he means by "learner"? Who will determine whether there is such a thing as a bona fide learner?

Mr. Isaacs: It will be the duty of the manpower boards to satisfy themselves that there is a genuine learnership, or apprenticeship, in existence. These boards had great experience of dealing with similar work during the war.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman says that the manpower boards will decide this issue. On what principles will they act? What will be the definition of "learner," for them to consider? What test will a board apply to determine whether the case before them is the case of a genuine learner? What the right hon. Gentleman has said may be valuable, but it is extremely vague. Cannot he be more precise?

Mr. Isaacs: We want the manpower boards to use that which is most useful in


cases like this—common sense. What would apply in the case of one firm, might not apply to another. There must be a genuine contract of learnership or apprenticeship, and that contract must be in a place where the lad has been apprenticed in accordance with the regular custom of the trade, and where there is an opportunity for him to learn his trade. It will be for the board to say, "This is a genuine case. The lad wants to be reserved for the time being to finish his training, and we think that he has made out his case."

Mr. Hopkin Morris: ; If this matter is to be left to the common sense of the board will it be left to the common sense of different manpower boards throughout the country? In other words, will there be no law governing these cases, but merely the discretion of each board?

Mr. Isaacs: There are many industries, and many kinds of learners. In the printing industry an apprentice is bound by an apprenticeship deed; in Scotland, he is not, but the apprenticeship is just as genuine even though there is no deed. There are other lads who are taken on as learners, and each industry or each office may have to be considered. It can be left to the manpower board to decide. They will have latitude in deciding what is the right thing to do in a particular case. The boards will, if necessary, take into account representations by employer and worker; there is no other way to do this, except by laying down rigid rules and regulations, to be interpreted in the letter rather than in the spirit.
Now we come to the question of whether this calling up of apprentices will ruin their career by taking them away before they have finished their term of training. There are two schools of thought about this matter. I have heard it said by craftsmen that it ruins a boy to take him away in the middle of his apprenticeship. On the other hand, others have said that it is far better that the boy should go away in the middle of his apprenticeship, and come back and pick it up again, than that he should be taken away when he is just beginning to practise his trade. There are excellent schemes in operation, initiated by the Coalition Government, for apprentices who came back to their trade. If an apprentice goes away and comes

back, it is agreed, in many cases, that he should serve only 18 months to complete his apprenticeship, instead of the usual term. That is an indication that he is coming back with a wider knowledge of the world, and of life. That has been proved to be the case. It has also been argued that these lads do not know what they are being asked to undertake. Well, they may not have known what they were being called upon to do during the war but, nevertheless, they did it. Many lads of this age volunteered, before the war, for such bodies as the Territorial Army. Many of a younger age are now joining the Auxiliary Training Corps, the Sea Cadets, and organisations of that kind. If they know what they are doing now, surely they will know what is expected of them when they go into the Forces.
There are other factors which have influenced the Government to stick to their proposal. If we adopt this proposal there will be nobody to call up for three years, because, as I would remind the Committee we are amending the existing Act, which provides for call-up at 18, and not making new law. If we called up these lads at 21, they would not be free from Service and Reserve obligations until they were 28. If we call them up at 18 they will at least be free three years earlier. We must adhere to our decision to call them up at 18. There is the question whether these lads will be helped in their future life by this call-up. They will get out of the rather narrow restricted circles of home life, and meet other men; they will see life from another angle; it is our belief that service in the Forces now —not as it used to be—will broaden their minds, will widen their education, and give many of them a chance of learning a new trade, or continuing to practise their present trade. For these reasons, the Government must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Churchill: I must compliment the Minister of Labour on the admirable speech which he has made, showing the great care and attention to detail with which the preparation for this Bill has been undertaken. A very pliant and flexible structure has been erected, one which enables the needs of individuals to be fitted in, with the least possible injury or inconvenience, with the hard requirements of the State in these severe times. As to the age at which men should


be called up for service, there is no doubt that to call up at 1S will be a less severe tax on the community than to call up at 21. At the age of 18, a year in His Majesty's uniform, and in what we hope will be the improved conditions of new Army life, may very well fill a part of their continuous education. Also, how good it is that there should be at that time, when people's minds are so pliant, a mingling of classes, on terms of equality, without the slightest regard to class differences or the fortunes and accidents of life. It seems to me that 18 is a very valuable age from the social point of view. From the military point of view, 19, perhaps, would have been better. A youth has more physical endurance as a fighting person, a fighting creature, at 19, and is probably worth more than at 18; but from the social point of view, and the point of view of adaptation —and it is hard to reconcile the Service machine to the ordinary life of the people and the ordinary bringing up of individuals—there is no doubt to my mind that to begin at 18 is a less severe form of national service than to begin at a later date. As to 21, that seems to me very severe. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who, with charming Victorian ideas, has spoken to us about the wicked Army and all that has not measured the differences in the sacrifices demanded of an individual British male called up at i8 to run through this course, and of one called up at 21.

Mr. Ayles: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice if he attributes to me any such terms as "wicked Army." What I said was "The ethics of war as opposed to the ethics of society," which is quite a different thing.

Mr. Churchill: As to the ethics of war and the ethics of society, we are all in favour of the ethics of society. The reason why this Bill was brought forward is that we were so worried lest the ethics of society should be upset by the ethics of war. I must return to the question, and the Committee must consider it, of how much greater sacrifice it would impose on citizens to begin this strain at 21 and run on to 28, than to begin it at 18, when it is part, almost, of the educational system. There can be no comparison of the two. From the point of view of the social application of this compulsory service, I certainly do not wish to fasten on to the hon. Gentleman, who made his

speech from the highest possible motives, any desire to cast a slur upon the Army; but things change as time goes on. The Army is a very different business now from what it was in the days when a red coat was not allowed inside a public house, and was treated as the scum of the population, until a war broke out, and he had to go and fight, and then he was a hero. It is very different now. A national Army is quite different from an Army of volunteers, who were produced largely by the pressure in the economic market. I am all for volunteers who come from some uplifting of the human soul, some spirit arising in the human breast, but to create a modern Army on a voluntary basis, by the mere pressure of the economic system, is entirely contrary to the kind of world on which our outlook is now fastened.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister gave very good and effective answers. I was very much struck by the care and pains which he has taken on some parts of this Bill. I wish we could have similar good treatment on other aspects of our affairs, but this was evidently thought out behind the scenes, in very great detail, and with very great knowledge of the weak places and the danger points of attack. Clause 14 gives very great latitude. I compliment the Government on the internal structure of this Clause, about which I shall have something to say later in these discussions about the sudden changes that have been made in all these calculated complications; but that would not be in Order now. I cannot use up, at this stage, any ammunition which I am reserving for another occasion.
I consider that the Bill has been drafted with great care and knowledge of the life of the people. It is a pity that we have to do these things at all. If we have to do them, on the whole the texture of this Bill as originally drafted, and this fixing A the age, seems to me to reflect an unwonted credit upon His Majesty's Government. Of course, when we come to the conscripted Armies of Europe, 19 to 21 has been the three years' service usually operated. That is very hard. Take a man of 21; he is probably going to get married. At 21 he is supposed to have Finished his training for a great many of the arts and crafts, or he has become settled in his point of view, and then to take him away for 18 months, or even


for 12 months, may be a great interruption. But youth is flexible and pliant, and I think that the Government have acted wisely in this matter. I had not noticed the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence on the scene. He is a sort of culprit arriving on a bench to which we are offering our compliments.
I trust we shall not attempt to prolong the age of calling up to 21. I cannot think of anything more dislocating to the ordinary life of the country than that. I cannot think of any countries before the war, which had to defend great land frontiers and the soil they lived on from invasion at any moment, and which began at such a retarded age as that. The hon. Gentleman has been right to raise this point; it is one which should be brought out in open debate. But I hope he will feel as a result of this discussion that it is possible for him to defer to the view expressed by his own leaders on this point, a view with which the Opposition associates itself.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: When I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, who has just been so effectively complimented by the Leader of the Opposition, I first realised what was the point of the Amendment. The point of the Amendment is not that it is in the interests of the young men, or of industry, that the age should be raised to 21. I am sorry that the mover of the Amendment seemed to think that that was the case. The real case for the Amendment was made by the Minister of Labour. The real case, he said, is a practical one. If you raise the age to 21, then for three years there will be no one to call up under the Bill. I, as an opponent of the Measure in the interests of the safety of the country, would welcome the argument of the Minister of Labour. He has really made a case, which I did not believe existed until I heard it, for postponing this matter, and giving the country some time to reconsider it.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I could hardly believe my eyes when I first saw this Amendment on the Order Paper. Then I saw who was proposing it, and I realised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) was an uncompromising opponent of military service.
The only discussions on the question of age which I have heard were concerned with the ages of i8 and 19, but the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has made the case for the Government, in addition to the words spoken by the Minister of Labour. I happen to be one of those who came back to the university after the first war was over, and it was the experience of those at the university then, as indeed it is the experience of those at the university today, and at every emergency training college in the country, that the two or three years in between school and university enabled the students to come back very much refreshed and on the whole better students.
I admit that the logic of this argument would lead me into a very difficult field, because it would almost assume that it was necessary to have a war, in order to have some sort of break between school and university. However, the question really depends on what is to happen between 18 and 19. We come to that in a later Amendment. As far as we are concerned here, if the period between 18 and 19 is not envisaged with a great deal more imagination, and with more educational and technical experience than the Service Ministers at present seem to devote to it, that year is going to be a rather wasted year. I would beg my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who have already spoken not to have quite such a simple view of the army in peace as they have of it in war. In war it is a different thing. Often men are caught up at 17½. My friends who are at present in the Army in this country are wasting their time and in Germany they are doing something worse.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What?

Mr. Lindsay: They are completely losing their moral, and if the hon. Member does not believe me let him go and see for himself. It is not quite a simple matter when we are discussing the question of age. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that this Bill does give very great flexibility, inasmuch as military service can be entered into between 17½ years and after deferment, but we shall have to know a lot more about learnership. I have been going into this question, and I cannot find any definition of learnership. The number of apprentices in the


country is between four and five per cent., and what I want to ask is this; Is the right hon. Gentleman going to get his numbers in the right proportions? Suppose all students who are going to be called up say they want to go in at 17½. Incidentally, I do not know what the sixth forms in the schools are going to do if that happens, but that is another matter. Supposing a very generous recognition is given to learnership not five or even 10 per cent., but 20 or 30 per cent., are we going to get very many people at 18 at all?
I daresay that this is rather outside the scope of this Amendment, but I quite understand the hon. Member for Southall putting down this Amendment, because he is against the whole thing. The age of 21 is to him better than 18, although no one has ever heard of any other country in the world suggesting 21 before. I have heard 18, 19 and even 20 suggested as ages at which young men should be called up, but not anything higher. I agree that this is a land of precedent, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford has pointed out, to defer calling up until 21 would do a great deal of harm to the industry of this country. I cannot see that there is any case for that, but when we come to discuss other questions in the Bill we want to take care over the definition of "learner-ship"; the kind of numbers that the Minister expects at different ages, and, above all, the kind of training the Services are going to give. Those are questions which will be raised on subsequent Amendments.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The question of whether compulsory service should begin at 18 or 21 is not a matter of principle, and it is rather a mistake for people who are opposed to the Amendment, to attribute to the mover the motive that because he is opposed to the Bill anyhow, he is proposing this Amendment. The principle has nothing to do with the Amendment, and even if this Amendment were passed, the mover would still lose on the main question. So many people who have spoken have complimented the Minister on making the complete case against the Amendment that I was left wondering why they spoke at all, because if a complete case were made, it would hardly need any support. The fact that so many people have supported

it makes me wonder whether, in fact, they are not shaky about it despite all the arguments that we have heard.
I do not think that the arguments of the Minister of Labour were good and I do not think that a case was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Several of the arguments were patently quite unmaintainable. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour began by saying, "But we could not possibly accept this Amendment because the effect would be that nobody would be called up for three years." Why in the world would that matter? The Bill does not begin to operate until 1950. It comes into operation in 1949, but it will not be in effective operation for the first time, until 1950. Therefore, the loss of time involved does not appear to be a very important matter. If the Bill were to be put into operation immediately after it receives the Royal Assent, I could see some force in the argument, but to accept this Amendment would not postpone calling up for three years. As the Government are not going to call up anybody until 1949, there does not seem to be much in that argument. I may be wrong in what I am saying but if so I should be glad if anyone would point out the error to me. The argument put forward by the Minister of Labour is not a conclusive one and I will leave it at that.
The next argument upon which my right hon. Friend relied seemed to me equally inconclusive. Dealing with the arrangements, he said that it was a mistake to call up people in the middle of their learnership or training but he used mutually contradictory arguments. He said first that many people think it better to interrupt the period of service than to wait until it is concluded, and then interpose a compulsory interval between the completion of their service, and the commencement of the trade. If that is seriously meant, what becomes of the other argument used by my right hon. Friend, that in every case where there was a serious interruption of learnership the manpower boards would in any case defer the call-up until the learnership was completed? The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind, if this is a disputed question, on which side he is. Nobody can say how these deferments are going to work.
Let us look at it. If we are in favour of interrupting the period of training on


the ground that it is better to go back to a period of training, then we do not want the power of deferment, and all that part of my right hon. Friend's speech, which is devoted to showing that everybody inside a certain period would be deferred, was a speech against his own point of view. If, on the other hand, we think they ought to have the period of compulsory service and call-up in the middle of the period of training, then we do not want elaborate provisions and elaborate machinery to prevent that very thing. [Interruption.] Did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say "Rubbish"?

5.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I did not say "Rubbish" at all. What I said was that it was optional for the person to be called up.

Mr. Silverman: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. But I do not follow him, because it is not optional. Optional means at the choice of the man called up, but the Bill does not provide that it is optional at all. It provides that a man may choose to apply, but it does not provide that a man may choose to be deferred. If he chooses to apply there is a manpower board which will decide the question, and presumably, since the National Service Acts already on the Statute Book apply, they will decide on the basis of hardships. The question they will have to consider is precisely the question which my right hon. Friend did not touch upon in his speech, namely, whether it is better for the period of training to be interrupted or whether it is better for it not to be interrupted. If he is coming down on the side of the view that it is better to interrupt, the argument put forward by the mover of the Amendment has not been replied to at all.
This question of 18 or 21, although there is no precedent for it in any of the continental models which we are following in having such a Bill in this country, is really quite an important question on social grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that it was in any case better from the military point of view to have a man at 19 than at i8, and I suppose, by a parallel reasoning, it would be better to have him at 21, from a military point of view, than at 19.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: Perhaps 42 would be still better.

Mr. Silverman: There are people who believe that Conscription Acts are usually passed by Parliaments whose average age is beyond the calling-up age fixed in the Act. [Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Member wants to say something, he had better get up. I think that is a dangerous kind of retort to make. If it is true that 19 is better than 18 from a military point of view, it would seem to follow that 21, from a military point of view, is better than 19. It would not necessarily follow—the arithmetic is sound but the logic faulty—that 42 or 84 would be better.
I am saying that 21 would be better from the military point of view than 19, and I think it would also be better from a social point of view. It is a great pity to take a boy at the age of i8 and place him compulsorily in a milieu where all responsibility for his actions is removed from him—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Certainly—where hp is treated as a cipher, where he has to do things not because they are right in themselves but because he is ordered to do them, and where the test of good membership of the society to which he belongs is not an individual judgment, a conscientious appreciation and balancing of one circumstance against another, or the proper taking part in a social order, but mere blind obedience to orders, which is the only virtue. There are times when that is a good thing; I am not inveighing against it altogether as a permanent principle, but I am saying that it is better not to do that with a boy whose mind is still in the formative stage. It is much better to encourage people of that age to think and choose and decide for themselves, and do what they think right against all the world. If there comes a time when one is bound by other necessities to compel them into an atmosphere where personal judgment, responsibility and choice are necessarily subordinated to other considerations, it is better to do that when the mind is more formed than to do it while it is less formed. I think, therefore, that on both military and social grounds, the case for the Amendment is made out.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I would like to return to the argument put forward by the mover of the Amendment, the hon. Member for


Southall (Mr. Ayles); I refer only to his point about the engineering trade. I nave not had the privilege of knowing what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said about what went on in the universities, but in the engineering trade, the average boy or young man comes in at the age of 16. At 18 he has done two years of his training, and has got through at any rate some of the dirty work. Now, in future, he is to be called up, and will probably return to the trade when he is 19 or 19½ years of age. I put the question to myself whether, when I served my time as an engineer, it would have been better for me to be called up at 18, or to have waited until I was 21. I believe it would have been better for me to be called up at 18 years of age, and I do not believe it would have done me the slightest harm to be in the Army for 12 or i8 months. I think I should have returned with more force of character, with my mind made up to pay attention to myself, and to learn my work, and I think I should have been a more useful man to my employer.
I take it that the trade unions themselves raise no objection one way or the other, but the employers, who are very seldom mentioned in this House, would, I am quite sure, be very glad to have a young man back at his trade again at 19½ years of age having seen something else. Just as, when one goes abroad, one appreciates one's own country better when one gets back, in the same way a young man who has left his trade will probably appreciate it more when he returns again from the Army. He will come back as what, in the old days, we used to call an "improver." A man in the last year of training as an engineer used to be called an "improver" and was probably getting approximately a journeyman's wages. If the Government resist this Amendment I believe they will be wise; it will be in the interests of the engineering industry, of the young men themselves, and of the country in general.

The Chairman: I hope the Committee is now ready to come to a decision and pass on to the next Amendment.

H: Hon. Members: No.

Commander Maitland: Running through the Second Reading Debate was the desire that we should man our Services by volunteers if possible.

The Minister of Labour made that point very clear. He said that the class of young man who would be coming into the Services at the age of 18 would form a valuable reservoir for volunteers. He went on:
Many of the young men called up to do their r8 months' service may find the Services so attractive to them that they may desire to continue in them, and to continue for a fixed period longer than their 18 months.' —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1947; Vol. 435. c. 1680.]
I consider that serving in the Services, and in the Royal Navy in particular, is an honourable duty, and that we shall find a large number of young men who will volunteer. It will be much more difficult for them to do so if they are called up at the age of 21 instead of at the age of i8. I hope that the Committee will support the Government on this issue.
There are two other points I wish to make. Both the mover of the Amendment and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made the point that young men coming into the Forces would have their initiative damped down. I have been connected for some time with technical training in the Navy. I assure the Committee, and the two hon. Gentlemen in particular, that we have spent our entire time trying to teach young men to think for themselves. At the end of a year's training many of these young men display an enormous difference not only from what they were when they entered the Service but from others of the same age when joining up straight out of private life. I cannot speak for the other Services, but I expect they work on exactly similar lines. We have not been unsuccessful in our endeavours in this respect in the Navy.

Mrs. Leah Manning: The young men are not all going into the Navy.

Commander Maitland: The second point is that I am a firm believer in discipline. I believe that far from doing harm it must do good to a young man at the age of 18. I am sure that Mr. Horner, for one, would agree with me. The mover of the Amendment mentioned self-discipline. In my opinion external discipline often leads to self-discipline. For those reasons I cannot but think that it would be an excellent thing if young men of that age were subject to it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I am convinced that the Amendment is justified, from my understanding of the situation at home, because it will enable youths to finish their apprenticeship. Experience in the Army is not of much use in a factory, from the practical and business point of view. When a young man is learning his trade he can go to a trade school, and he may want to go on to higher classes. His parents may deny themselves many things in order to give the lad an opportunity of learning his trade. Very often that self-denial is accompanied by the receipt of lower wages, if the young man is in an indentured apprenticeship. It is self-denial and discipline of the highest order. Military training may mean a lack of discipline for the young artisan, who needs the discipline of the home, in order to make him into a good citizen.
It is a very controversial question whether 18 or 21 is the best age at which to give service to the State. I think a boy ought to be able to go on with his work, have the benefit of home life and reach maturity before he gives his service, as he is likely then to be a better citizen. I am not a pacifist. I want to see the young men of this nation get the best possible opportunities. From my practical experience at home I am convinced that we shall lose many boys from industry after their Army life if they begin it at 18. When they come out of the Army they will not return to their jobs. Continuation of their studies and learning their trade with their friends in the workshops until the age of 21 would be beneficial to the nation, to home life and to the young men. At that age they would better understand their own weaknesses and would be able to come back better men to their jobs. I do not believe in the interruption of learning, because young people may lose their skill when they cannot continue their jobs. It is essential that men who have to manipulate machinery should be adept in the use of their hands. I am convinced that the Amendment is wise, and I shall support it.

Mr. Pickthorn: ; I will not weary the Committee with any long arguments upon the main points, which I think have been sufficiently discussed. My own conclusion is that there

cannot be any doubt that educationally, whether the word "education" is taken in a narrow or in a wider sense, there must be an advantage in there being an opportunity for some boys—I would say a high proportion—beginning their military service at the age of 18. Therefore the Committee would be well advised to reject the Amendment, which proposes to make that impossible for all boys until they are 21.
That seems to me really to be the short point and the main point, but I hope I may be forgiven if I detain the Committee for two or three minutes, in case the Parliamentary Secretary be about to reply, to ask whether we might have a little more clarification of one or two expressions used by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the test of the deferment would be whether, in the opinion of the tribunal—in the common sense of the tribunal, was his phrase— there was a genuine contract of learnership. I think that is rather a horrid word, but I do not blame the Minister for it, and I dare say it was a necessary technical term. Surely, there must be in the Minister's Department—even in his head —some definition of those words with which the Committee ought to be favoured.
What is common sense? I never quite know what is the meaning when one talks about common sense. I take it that it means the general feeling, and finding of people in general., about something or other—that is the common sense of the question; it may be that when you go into it technically, or with scientific instruments, and so on, you will find that feeling or finding not quite right; I think that is the meaning of common sense. If that is the right interpretation of the words, I want to know how the tribunal is to have a common sense. What principles are to be laid down for it? Secondly, I want to know whether the Minister, when he spoke of the contract of learnership, was really meaning a contract in the strict sense, or whether he meant no more than that the tribunal was to make sure there was a genuine process of more or less systematised training going on. I do not know whether that is what he meant. If he will forgive me, that is not what he said. He spoke of


a genuine contract. It ought to be made plain whether the thing is to be made a matter of a contract in a strict sense or not. Thirdly, I suppose there trust be some kind of estimate or guess about the percentage, because obviously the Minister's whole argument—that if we accepted this Amendment, for three years he would have no recruits—was an argument of much weight, but if that argument is of weight, the Minister is clearly under a duty to know and to tell us how near he expects to be driven to that by exemptions, because clearly if there were any serious risk that there would be 70 per cent., 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of long deferments on grounds of learnerships, he would be falling into the difficulty of the Amendment, although he was resisting the Amendment. Therefore, I think he owes it to the Committee to give us information on those three points before we part with this Amendment.

Squadron-Leader Donner: . Might I ask the Minister to elucidate one point, which arises partly from what has been said by my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and partly from questions put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. ManninghamBuller) to which he received no adequate answer. The Minister said that common sense would be used by the tribunals. I do not know how many of these tribunals there are to be. Are they to be on a regional basis? Are there to be 20, 40 or 50 of them? If there are to be that number, and if they are to act, not upon recognised principles laid down by the Minister, but merely upon common sense, it is likely, is it not, that there will be differences of judgment and, therefore, inequality of treatment as between one locality and another and between one man and another. I feel sure the Minister would be the first to admit that nothing would be more unfortunate than that some young man felt a grievance because his appeal for deferment had been refused whereas the appeal of another man of the same age, perhaps coming from a different part of the country, had been successful. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee how many of these tribunals there are to be, and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the common sense to which he referred will work out

uniformly so that there will not be injustices and inequalities.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Mr. Manningham-Buller.

Mr. Keenan: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I ask what is the practice of the Chair in calling hon. Members from different sides of the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be quite out of Order for me to reply to that question. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair which hon. Members are called.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not intend to traverse in any detail the arguments that have been adduced in favour of this Amendment. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) really put the point in a nutshell in saying that the effect of the Amendment would be to exclude a young man who wanted to get his wholetime service done when he was young from any opportunity of doing so, and so might interfere with that individual's career. There is under this Bill a wide discretion as to the time of service, but as the Minister said, that very largely depends upon the way in which the deferment machinery is operated. I hope we shall get a much clearer statement from the Parliamentary Secretary than we had from the right hon. Gentleman in the Second Reading Debate and again today. The right hon. Gentleman said, on Second Reading, that with the exception of underground miners, no deferment would be allowed on industrial grounds. He is now saying, as indeed he said before, that there will be deferment in the case of a genuine and satisfactory apprenticeship being in operation. He said it must be genuine. How is the tribunal to determine that? What test is it to apply? Is it to be left to each tribunal to apply any tests it likes? If that is allowed to happen, there will be a great diversity of decisions in almost similar cases between the respective tribunals.
Again, if the test is to be whether there is a genuine contract of apprenticeship in accordance with the custom of the trade. in a place where the apprentice can learn, that may be very applicable, for instance,


in the printing trade, but what about the man employed in agriculture? Is he to be regarded as being apprenticed if he is working on a family farm, if he is what the Minister calls an honest, square case, and if he is employed on a farm where he can learn? Will that be regarded as a studentship or learnership? I think that, before we pass from this Amendment, we ought to know of what principles deferment is to be granted and, in particular, whether young men who are engaged in learning farming genuinely will also be able to get deferment in the same way as those engaged in printing, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. We are entitled to know the conditions and general principles on which such deferments will be granted. Young men who will have to make up their minds whether or not to apply for deferment want to know in advance whether or not they are likely to obtain it. One wants them to make their plans for their own future to a large extent. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with those points as fully as he can, so that we may know how deferment is to operate in peacetime.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It appears that the Committee have rather anticipated the Amendment to Clause 16 standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) which deals with deferment. I do not know how we have got off the road in this way.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think we have got off the road but I hope we have not prejudiced discussion on that Amendment. It happened because the right hon. Gentleman brought in the whole question of deferment which, of course, becomes relevant in answering the Amendment now before us.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That was brought in by the mover of the Amendment and it had to be dealt with. It seems to me that we have carried the discussion over a piece of ground which is covered by the later Amendment to which I have referred. I do not want to escape from answering the points which have been put. The Committee should remember that this Bill follows on the White Paper on the Call Up to the Forces. That provides for the call up during 1947 and 1948, and the whole position is laid down in regard to the

manner in which deferments are to be operated from an administrative point of view. There has been a great deal of debate and difference of opinion on the question whether 18 or 21 is the right age for call up. I assume that the mover of this Amendment, if it was successful, would not accept the consequences of the success of his Amendment and agree to people being called up at 21. However, that is by the way.
It seems to me that the position is divided into two. That point was brought out very well by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). With regard to students, the argument is entirely different. The student who takes his matriculation at about the age of 18 must, if he wants to go to university, first assure himself that there is a place in the university for him. If there is a place and he would rather take his training at the university before going into the Forces, he can then apply for that. We shall be advised by the Joint University Recruiting Board, which consists of the vice-chancellors of the universities, whether or not options in these cases hall be allowed. Two considerations apply. One is that there are places in the universities, and the second is that the student who is applying has attained the necessary educational standards.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman says we shall be advised by the Joint University Recruiting Board on the question whether options shall be allowed. I take it he means whether in any particular case an option should be allowed. He does not mean it is going to be left 'to the vice-chancellors to decide that, after all, there shall not be any options?

Mr. Ness Edwards: They will decide individual cases. The principle has been agreed. That is the position with regard to students. I think it will be agreed that that is an option that should be left to the student. If the student feels that he ought to take his 12 months' service first, and then go to university, that is a right he ought to exercise. In the circumstances, it is a matter for him. In the Bill as it is drafted, that right is given.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is that quite clear? If so, I misunderstood it. Is it quite clear that the decision rests with the man liable under the Bill subject only to his satisfying the Manpower Board either that he


is a student under these terms or that a valid contract of learnership or apprenticeship is in existence?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I was dealing only with students. I do not want to be confused. I think my hon. Friend missed the first part of my statement. We must in 1949 when this Bill comes into operation, as now, maintain for the men coming from the Forces the prior right to the available seats in the universities. We must not allow an exercise of this option by too many students to crowd out the men who have already done their service. I think that that will be agreed on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Stephen: I had a case brought to my attention today. A second year medical student who has failed to pass in one subject at Edinburgh University only gets the right of the one try and then he goes into the Forces, whereas at Glasgow University the student in a similar position may have the right of three tries at the examination before he is called up. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the same principle operates in each of the universities?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We would like to look at that matter. We want the same conditions to apply in each university. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that a man who has one try and fails should not keep out a man from the Forces who is waiting for a place in the university.
I now come to the industrial side. We have had a great deal of discussion and have consulted both sides of industry about this matter. The general feeling was that 18 was right but that there should be an option, in certain cases where there were bona fide apprenticeships, for the person to be called up to have the opportunity of exercising an option for deferment of his service. How is this done? There are in this country 60 manpower boards which were set up during the war. They functioned throughout the war and they are still functioning and dealing with problems of this sort. First, they dealt with problems of apprentices in the engineering industry during the war. Since I have been in this House I have not heard any complaint about the functioning of the manpower boards in regard to deferment of apprentices in the engineering industry.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: On a point of fact, is the hon. Gentleman correct in saying that the manpower boards which functioned during the war still function in Scotland?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is what I said. Manpower boards are functioning for this purpose all over the country. There are 60 of them and they will continue to exercise the same functions under this Bill as those which they now exercise under the White Paper.

Mr. Ayles: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the last year I have had cases that I have sent to his Department concerning engineering apprentices who only had a year to serve, and who have been forced into the Forces, and that only recently I had one case where a man had only six months of his apprenticeship to complete and he was taken away into the Forces despite all the protests I made?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I quite understand that. Deferments under the White Paper and deferments under the original National Service Act were deferments in the national interest and not the individual interest. In the case of the engineering industry, with developing unemployment, it was felt the time had come to stop this wholesale deferment of apprentices. This has been done under previous legislation and under the present White Paper, in the national interest and not so much in the interest of the individual. Now it is proposed in the Bill under the new arrangement—

Mr. S. Silverman: Under what Clause?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This arises under Clause 16 where there is an Amendment to be moved from the opposite side of the Committee. The matter is set out very fully there and really we should be having this discussion at that stage. With regard to learnership, this was a term which caused great difficulty. The term is used in paragraph 9 on the White Paper on Call Up to the Forces, which says:
Articled clerks, learners, those attending certain full-time technical classes, and others in a position similar to apprentices will be treated on the same basis as apprentices.
That seems to me to define the position fairly clearly. The learner must be someone in a position comparable with that of an apprentice. It must be a continuous


process. Those attending technical classes must be doing so as part of their training for an occupation. It is not intended to exclude men employed by the owners of small businesses because those employers may not perhaps have the business knowledge necessary to formulate paper documents on which the apprenticeship arrangements are based.
I have one last point which I hope will appeal to the Committee. If this Amendment is accepted, it means that no one will be called up for two years, and if no one is called up for two years, will the Committee accept the consequences—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]—that nobody can be demobilised for two years, and that the men to whom this Committee has guaranteed release, must be retained?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the point I put to him with regard to those employed in agriculture. I would like an answer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am very sorry. I was interrupted so many times. I apologise for not answering the question with regard to agriculture. Here again the position is one of considerable difficulty. It is not intended to call up agricultural people for this year and next year. It may be that in 1949 when this Bill comes into operation there will still have to be block deferments—one does not know— but in agriculture there are certain categories of apprentices, men who are articled and men who have agreements who are not quite in the category described by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was putting to the Parliamentary Secretary the further case of a young farmer or a young assistant who was working and learning on the farm and who had nothing in writing, nothing by way of a document.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The facts of each one of these borderline cases will be considered by the manpower board.

Mr. Keenan: I want to remind the Committee of what has been said about demobilisation. I do not want those who contemplate the passing of this Amendment to forget that it means that from January, 1949, there will be no call-up for three years. That will have to be taken into account in addition to the present circumstances. What I am particu-

larly concerned about is the anxiety displayed in all quarters of the Committee as to who should be deferred. I am not one of those who are at all anxious about national service. I am not a pacifist. I agree that in the circumstances we must have national service. I cannot see how the Government can escape their responsibility for looking after the Armed Forces, and all hon. Members should be behind them in that; but I am concerned about this anxiety to defer everybody. I hope that the Ministers who are responsible will not be too much impressed by all the 'claims that are being made. Let us have national service. Let everyone's share be equal. Too much attention is being paid to deferment. Everybody who is eligible should be called up.
I go so far as to say that not even those who desire to go to the universities and other places should escape. Why should the individual who lacks somebody behind him, either family influence or, as the Minister put it rather unfortunately, an employer who is concerned with the learner, be deferred? We ought not to have it as loosely as this. I am glad that the Minister referred to the manpower board as being responsible for determining such a matter as this rather than leaving it to anybody else, because I feel that the board will take the view that there should be no looking at anybody else. When young people are 18 they should be eligible for national service and there should be no deferment for anyone. No one should have advantages over anyone else. It should be national service in the true meaning of the term. We should consider this Bill from that point of view rather than from that of being prepared to dodge service, which seems to be the intention in so many quarters of the House.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: I would like to ask how widely the manpower boards will go in the granting of deferments. I have particularly in mind the building industry. In my area only a very small percentage of the boys in the building industry have indentures, or any written evidence of apprenticeship, and the great majority of them have great difficulty in satisfying the manpower board that they are eligible for deferment. I hope that the Ministry of Labour will


look into this matter in order to see that large numbers of boys in the building industry are not called up at a time when it is important for them to complete their training.

Mr. Charles Williams: ; Frankly I think the Committee owes a deep debt to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) for putting down this Amendment because it gives this House possibly the only chance it may have for a considerable time of discussing the right age at which men should enter military service. That point alone is one of very great importance, and I have no intention of giving a silent vote if I can help it. The discussion up to the present has been very largely on the effect of this on university students and apprentices. We have had the opinion of a great many experts and, as happens almost invariably, they disagree.
I am sure that the hon. Member put down this Amendment in complete and absolute innocence. I have listened to many of his speeches and I have always assumed that his innocence was far above that of a normal human being. It can never have struck his mind that if this Amendment were passed, it would completely wreck the Bill. That is what the Ministry of Labour says—we should have a gap of up to two years, it may be a whole two years, with no recruits coming in. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) pointed out that there would also be delay in the demobilisation of the men at present in the Services if exemptions are given to a great many people. In addition to considering the age of call up, we have also to consider how soon we can demobilise the men who are already serving and who will have to serve very much more than the 18 or 12 months. I therefore welcome the fact that the Minister strongly declined to accept the Amendment on that point. I was regretful that the Parliamentary Secretary a little while ago was so hurried or so desirous of stopping the Debate that he did not—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Mr. Ness Edwardsindicated dissent.

Mr. Williams: A number of hon. Members seem to wish to intervene, including hon. Members on the Parliamentary Secretary's side of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say the

approximate total number of people he expects to be exempted in the universities. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me, I will give way. It is only a matter of courtesy and I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like that Tory quality. In the interests of the men serving, I think we should have a very clear indication of how far the postponements will go because, if they are to be very wide, we shall be forcing a large number of men to lengthen their time in the Services. For that reason, although I recognise that there must be exemptions, I hope they will not be too wide.
There is a further point in favour of 18 which I think has only been mentioned casually. It is that there will be a much larger number of men married at 21 than at 18, and although family life may not mean a great deal to many people, yet calling up at i8 will mean calling up more men before they are married. From that point of view alone, if for no other, I think the various moral obligations put first on the one side and then on the other, are completely outweighed by the fact that there will be thousands of cases in which the married life of the men will not be interrupted at all.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I ask why a mysterious stranger on the battlements has pulled down the blinds of two of the windows, thus bringing darkness upon us and our castle?

The Deputy-Chairman: It was done on my instructions because certain hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench seemed to find the sun rather powerful.

Mr. Baxter: Do you not think that this Committee might take the risk that English sunlight will not be too blinding?

The Deputy-Chairman: When I think the time has arrived, I will give the necessary instructions for the blinds to be pulled up.

Mr. Frank Byers: The Parliamentary Secretary made an important statement and I am not sure whether he or the Committee appreciates its importance. I think hon. Members from rural constituencies, however, will realise its importance. He said that the new principle, as far as deferment between the ages of 18 and 21 was concerned, was that the individual would be


considered, whereas in the past it had been the national interest that was paramount. Now, however, with conscription in peacetime, it would be the interests of the individual which would be considered by the manpower board. So far, so good. Then he went on, when challenged from the Front Bench above the Gangway on the question of agricultural workers, to say that it might be necessary to have block deferments in the next two years in 1949 and presumably 1950. I think that will be within the recollection of hon. Members. Block deferment means that you are in fact deferring on the ground of national and not individual interest, and I want to challenge the Parliamentary Secretary about which principle is being applied universally, and which principle is being applied as far as the agricultural worker is concerned. Are we to have one rule for people in certain industries, students and so forth, but, when it comes to a question of the national economic interest, are we then to decide that the interests of the individual are to be sub ordinated to those of the State?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have been quite misunderstood on this matter. What I said was that this year and next year we have a block deferment for agriculture. Then I said that, under the new Bill, individual rights would be considered as being above those of the State. Whatever block deferments may apply in 1949, 1950 or 1951, it will not defeat the right of the individual in the expression of his views in regard to deferment.

Mr. Byers: If an individual wants to be called up at 18, when there is a block deferment in force, he can be called up?

Mr. Edwards: That is the position now. The individual who has a block deferment now, but wants to volunteer, can do so and is allowed to do so.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: May I ask a question? How does this Bill affect deferment at all?

Mr. Edwards: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been here, he would have known that it is provided for in Clause 16 and is the subject of an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden).

Amendment negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman: I propose, with the consent of the Committee, that the next five Amendments should be discussed together, namely:

In page 1, line 11, leave out "Great Britain," and insert "England."

In line 11 leave out "Great Britain," and insert "United Kingdom."

In line 11, after "Britain," insert:
other than in Wales or Monmouthshire.

In line 11, after "Britain," insert:
other than subjects ordinarily resident in Wales or Monmouthshire

In line 11, after "Britain," insert:
other than subjects ordinarily resident in Scotland.

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: May I be allowed to finish my sentence? I propose that the next five Amendments should be taken together, it being understood that, where appropriate, separate Divisions may be called. I also think it right to inform the Committee that in the event of it being decided that the words "Great Britain" should stand part of the Bill, I propose to call a manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) as follows:
Clause 1, page line 11, after "Britain" insert "and Northern Ireland".
This is subject to the consent of the Committee, but I think it will mean that we shall have a more concentrated Debate than if the Amendments are taken separately.

Mr. Clement Davies: With respect, Mr. Beaumont, I do not think we shall have a more concentrated but a more diffused Debate. It is not a question of territorial division; it is a question of outlook on the part of each part of the country. What happens with regard to Scotland I am sure will be made clear by the Scottish Members; we, on behalf of Wales, want to make our position clear; so do hon. Members with regard to Northern Ireland. Instead of having them in proper order with an answer given by the Minister, I should imagine the Chair will be calling hon. Members from various parts of the House, and instead of getting a more definite, clear Debate, it will be much more diffused.

Mr. Eden: May I be allowed to support my right hon. and learned Friend on this issue, Mr. Beaumont? I would draw your attention to the point that two of these categories of Amendments deal with suggested omissions of part of the United Kingdom, whereas another Amendment suggests the inclusion of part of the United Kingdom in the Bill. I cannot think it is possible to have a good discussion on all those Amendments taken together. It seems to me there will be a great deal of cross-discussion and diffused discussion. I cannot help feeling that it would be more satisfactory to the Committee that each part of the United Kingdom should be allowed to state its own point of view. After all, we are a United Kingdom but we do not take united views on this issue. Let each component part state its view which happens to be different from that of another component part.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I say a word in support of the convenience of the course you have suggested, Mr. Beaumont? All the Amendments are concerned with the general question of whether the Bill shall apply to the whole of Great Britain, or only to some parts of it and, if so, to which. It seems to me that the best way of deciding that is to discuss all together and then divide separately on the separate questions. I really think that would mean a more concentrated debate, without in any way prejudicing separate Divisions on separate questions.

6.0 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I wish to support the plea made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies)—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Am I not right in saying that if the Committee refuses to agree with the suggestion made by the Chair—it was only a suggestion—and if objection is taken, the Chair then, in accordance with precedent, calls the Amendments separately?

The Deputy-Chairman: This matter is one for the general will and convenience of the Committee, which I wish to follow. I think it is only right that an hon. Member responsible for one of the Amendments should be allowed to address the Committee.

Earl Winterton: That was not my point of Order, which was to ask you whether

it is not the case that if objection is taken to a course suggested by the Chair, the Chair is bound to have regard to that objection? I do not understand what all this discussion is about.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the noble Lord that that is possibly so, but I wanted to get the general sense of the Committee, and then to proceed accordingly.

Sir R. Ross: In rising to support the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I plead that these Amendments, which are wholly different in character, should be taken separately. The position in regard to the Rules of Order, as I understand it, is that the normal procedure is for you to call the separate Amendments, or such of them as you may select, but that for convenience, and with the general consent of the Committee, it is then possible to amalgamate certain Amendments, particularly regarding discussion, if they are subsequently the subject of separate Divisions. First of all on the point as to whether it is convenient to have these Amendments amalgamated, I suggest that it is very inconvenient to make a complete hotch-potch of the Debate. The Amendment in my name and the names of my hon. Friends is of very considerable substance, and affects a population about the size of that of New Zealand who have never had National Service at all. It would be mixed up with entirely contrary Amendments moved by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), who is asking for the same thing in Scotland. If we have interlarded and interleaved discussions about wholly different parts of the country, with wholly different intentions, I can see nothing emerging but the most complete confusion.
If I might use a homely allegory, it is rather like the agricultural device of tying two goats together when they are trying to go different ways—in this case three goats—and it leads to confusion. As to the point about the consent of the Committee, I do not think that is of the definite character which requires a decision, but I think you with your great experience, Mr. Beaumont, will agree that it is normally customary for the general approval, at all events not violent disapproval, of a substantial part of the


Committee to be obtained, especially as the course proposed would embarrass the movers of two of the Amendments. I hardly expect that Scotland wishes to be thrown into a general pot boiling with everyone else. In those circumstances, I ask that the Amendments should be taken separately, and at least that the two Amendments which propose to leave out words should nut be taken with the Amendment that proposes to insert words.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to come to a decision.

Mr. Gallacher: We always hear references made to England—England does this and England does that —but here is an Amendment which proposes that it should be the United Kingdom. The four other Amendments refer to England. England takes the credit, let England take the responsibility. If it is decided that England takes the responsibility—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member seems to be discussing the Amendment before the Amendment has been put.

Mr. Gallacher: No. If we get a decision that England is not to accept the responsibility, then that will bring in Scotland and Wales, and there will not be a question of one being left out. The question at issue is one question. It is not a separate question of Wales and Scotland, but the wide question of whether England will take the responsibility with the credit, or whether the rest are to come in.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think I am now able to come to a decision. The course suggested by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) that I should leave the decision to the Committee is a course which would not be appropriate. There is no precedent for it. I have to make the final decision, which is that each Amendment shall be taken separately. May I venture to express the hope that we shall not have endless repetition?

Mr. Carmichael (Bridgton): I beg to move, in page 1, line 11,to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "England."
We are quite prepared to allow Wales to come along with Scotland, and have not the same fear about Wales as

apparently Wales has about Scotland. We present this Amendment quite frankly not on the narrow national ground. Although I recognise that under Standing Orders I must stick to the Amendment, we are opposed to the principle of conscription. Consequently, if I suggest that Scotland should be excluded from this Bill, then I must do it on the grounds of my opposition to the principle contained in the Bill. The principle contained in the Bill is that conscription should apply to this country. I think that is a very serious departure in national policy. I listened very carefully to the Debate during the Second Reading and subsequently I read the speeches which had been delivered with very great care.
A strong case was made out for conscription, but on examination I cannot find the strong case that appeared to be submitted during the actual Debate. The Minister of Defence was seriously challenged about what our commitments were to be, and, further, what was to be the ultimate strength of the Forces after this Bill is in operation in 1950. On neither of those counts was the Minister of Defence able to submit any sound evidence so that we could argue the case. We have no knowledge of the commitments which I presume will depend on the foreign policy under the agreements—

H. D. Hughes: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to argue the general case on this Amendment? Should not discussion be confined to the terms of the Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have been listening to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), and he is now getting wide of the Amendment. His remarks should be about the Amendment, which proposes to leave out the words "Great Britain" and to insert "England."

Mr. Carmichael: I am, of course, always ready to bow to your guidance, Mr. Beaumont, but I submit to you that this Committee has the right to enforce conscription in Scotland provided only that there is ample evidence that a case can be made out for conscription. I admit that the Debate is wide, but I would like to challenge hon. Members with much longer experience of this House than myself to say how it can be


demanded that Scotland should be involved in this responsibility without first debating that responsibility very seriously. The point I am trying to make—

The Deputy-Chairman: The principle of conscription was decided upon by the House when the Bill was given a Second Reading. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment which he is moving.

Mr. Stephen: It is true that the House has decided on the principle of conscription, but I would submit to you, Mr. Beaumont, that it has not yet decided how far it shall extend territorially— whether it shall cover England or Scotland.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is the purpose of the Amendment, and the point which the hon. Member will be in Order in discussing is whether that shall be so, not the general merits of conscription.

Major Guy Lloyd: On a point of Order. Is it legitimate and in Order to mention Scotland and to discuss Scotland, when the whole object of the Amendment is England? The word Scotland does not appear in it at all.

The Deputy-Chairman: I presume that the purpose of the Amendment is to exclude Scotland so that the application of the Bill will be to England. Therefore, the question which is now before the Committee is whether Scotland should be excluded.

Mr. Carmichael: If the Amendment is examined carefully it will be seen that it is made quite clear that we are prepared to leave all the fighting to England, and that everyone in Scotland should be excluded. I will try to submit why I think that Scotland should be excluded.

Major Lloyd: Further to my point of Order. Should not the discussion be on the advisability of having conscription in England, and in no way be concerned with conscription in Scotland?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's interpretation of the Amendment. If he will allow me, I will keep hon. Members in Order.

Mr. Carmichael: It is amazing how much advice is being given to you from

all sides of the House, Mt. Beaumont, in relation to an inexperienced Parliamentarian. I hope hon. Members will do you the courtesy of accepting the fact that you understand your job, and will at least allow you to be responsible for calling me to Order if you think it necessary.
My reason for putting down this Amendment was that because of the method by which the Bill was framed we could present our Amendment in no other form. It is obvious from the unity on both sides of the Committee that no one need put up a case on behalf of England. There is complete unanimity, not only on the Front Benches, but on the Back Benches. Even the people who are apparently more Left than the official ranks of the Government are also backing the Government in this Measure. Let me say why I think that Scotland should be excluded. We are dealing with a population of something under four and a half million people. There are two strong reasons why I think Scotland cannot be asked to be associated with this conscription Measure. The first is the economic reason, and the second is the military reason. The economic reason can be examined on the basis of figures submitted by the Minister of Defence. According to the White Paper, we will have a little over one million people in the Armed Forces in 1948. These are the only figures which we have to work upon. The Minister of Defence was asked in the Second Reading Debate if he could give us any idea of the figures for the Armed Forces, once this Measure was in operation. He has not given us any. I am not suggesting that he is withholding them; it is impossible to give them.
I have tried to work on the figures which we have. According to those figures, submit that 100,000 young men will be wanted from Scotland. If people think I am exaggerating let us reduce the number to 75,000, If one adds to that the numbers involved in civil services associated with the Armed Forces, at least another 25,000 can be added. Therefore, I say that without exaggeration 100,000 people are to be required for the Armed Forces of the country. Young miners are to be exempted because their work is regarded as being of national importance. I have listened to the Debate today as to whether the age should be 18 or 21. Before the Debate concluded it was evident that it would be possible for almost every young man to have exemption for a period, in


one way or another. It was equally obvious that agriculture was regarded as being so important that it may be necessary to give block exemptions in respect of that industry.
At what industry in Scotland is the line drawn, because there is a close link between coal and steel, and a very close link between steel and shipbuilding? I am thoroughly convinced that the economic position in Scotland cannot be restored if the strong part of the manpower there is drained from the basic industries, because according to the Bill we are taking these young men out of industry not merely for full-time military service, but also for part-time military service, which is not yet defined. Therefore, the young men will at one period or another far exceed 100,000 because over the period of the five years a great proportion of the young men who have served their time will also be devoting part of their time from their employment to their military duties. I do not think any economic expert is needed to argue the case that our country cannot face up to a situation of that kind. Therefore, I say that on economic grounds there is no occasion for including Scotland. I have heard arguments from the other side that we must face up to our commitments. What are our commitments? I think there is too much ambiguity in that phrase. I have to go to the people of my Division—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is getting too wide. I wish he would come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Carmichael: I have got to go to my people. Surely, if I go to the Lobby to support this Measure I have to go to the people of Bridgeton to tell them why I supported the Measure? I have to tell them that they have serious commitments, and that they have to face up to them. Let us look at the military position so far as Scotland is concerned. We have never been an aggressive people at any time. [Interruption.] I should like my hon. Friends who are authorities on history to tell me when with malice we ever invaded England.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope no one will reply for he too will be out of Order.

Mr. Carmichael: I say again that the Scottish people, whatever faults we have,

are not an aggressive people. We are asked to face up to our military obligations. What are our military obligations today? Almost half the people of Scotland live in the crowded Southern belt, and in modern warfare Scotland, in the economical and in the physical sense, could be wiped out in less than 24 hours. We are quite incapable of producing an Army that could be of service in any foreign field. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I hope I may develop the point, since some hon. Members say it is nonsense. It may be within the knowledge of hon. Members that even the Highland regiments maintain their strength in peacetime—and I hope that they have some relation to the Measure— through the invasion of Cockneys from London. I am speaking of regiments such as the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Highland Light Infantry. We cannot produce an Army in Scotland that can be of any real service in modern warfare. Let there be no nonsense about that. Indeed, the argument applies to the entire country. This country is now incapable of being a force in modern affairs by means of war.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now discussing matters far beyond the scope of the Amendment, which is concerned with a much narrower point.

Mr. Carmichael: I think that rapping was quite undeserved. If it was good enough to bring in a Bill of this kind, which is all-embracing, surely I am entitled to show my opposition, so far as Scotland is concerned, and to include occasional references to the general problem of conscription? But I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. I cannot see Scotland making any serious contribution. We are quite incapable of providing an Army of any dimensions or of assisting an Army of any dimensions. What did we find in the last war? We have not the resources with which to build the things essential today for modern warfare. What are the things associated with modern warfare? No one is going to say we cannot discuss the atomic bomb in relation to this Bill. Surely, the atomic bomb has some relationship to modern warfare? I say— and no one will dispute it—that one atomic bomb in the West of Scotland—

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment does not deal with the atomic bomb.


The hon. Member is now advancing arguments that might have been in Order on the Second Reading, but which are certainly not in Order on this Amendment.

Mr. Carmichael: Are we asking the people to accept responsibility, without showing them all the implication of it? Surely, if the people of Scotland are to support a Measure of this kind they must know all its implications. I do not want now to discuss the atomic bomb, because the Debate on the Second Reading was the time to discuss that. But, surely I am entitled to say that one atomic bomb dropped in the West of Scotland, would immediately wipe out the greater part of the population? That must have some bearing on the mind of those who represent the people of Scotland in this House. So far as Scotland is concerned, we are very prepared to be sufficiently humble to leave all the fighting to the people of England.

Commander Galbraith: I rise at once to make evident beyond any doubt whatsoever what is the attitude of those of us who sit on this side of the House to this Amendment. It was with very great regret that I saw this Amendment on the Paper at all—a regret which has only been increased the longer the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment continued to speak. I must suggest that, really, the whole of the arguments he put forward were entirely bogus arguments so far as the Amendment is concerned. They were general arguments directed against the Bill as a whole, and in no way concerned the Amendment. In saying that I regret the Amendment, I speak not only for myself, but on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and particularly those of us who are Scotsmen and represent Scottish constituencies. This Amendment is obnoxious to the whole of the Scottish people. It does not represent either their desires or their feelings in any way whatsoever.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: I fought an Election less than 12 months ago, and I specifically included in my Election address my complete opposition to military conscription. My opponents, including a Unionist, were in favour of conscription, but I am in this House today as a result of that vote.

Commander Galbraith: I still stand to my own opinion, and I put it to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman who has just made that interruption stands in a very peculiar position. I do not, personally, believe that he was returned to this House because of his political opinions, but far rather because of the long number of years in which he has been associated with his constituency and the high personal, apart from the political, regard in which he is held in that constituency. From my point of view, at least, the hon. Gentleman does not represent any volume of Scottish opinion whatever. It is perfectly true that there is in Scotland today a universal desire, which has been very much increased as the result of the nationalisation policy of the Government, which removes effective control of the industries and services which are nationalised from Scotland to Whitehall, that purely Scottish matters should be administered from Scotland by people who understand Scotland.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Now that you have allowed the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) to discuss nationalisation, Mr. Beaumont, I hope that, when I am allowed to follow him, I shall also be allowed to discuss it.

The Deputy-Chairman: Because one hon. Member has gone off the track is no reason why another should do so.

Commander Galbraith: I was only leading up to a point, and not discussing nationalisation at all. I was merely pointing out the desire of Scottish people in certain respects, and I was going on to say that that in no way concerns defence. We realise in Scotland that the defence of the United Kingdom is one and indivisible. We cannot possibly defend any part of the United Kingdom in isolation from the other parts, and we realise something more than that. We realise that the defence of the Commonwealth and Empire is a United Kingdom trust and responsibility, and that Scotland has a share in that responsibility and trust.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of our Army not being of any real service. I wonder what the men who fought in the recent war would think of a statement of that kind? I wonder what the men who have fought in wars time and again and who


came from Scotland will think of a remark like that? I suggest that the services given in the Army and in the other Services by people from Scotland have been of the utmost benefit to our country in her hour of need. The Scottish people regard with absolute scorn the suggestion which the hon. Member made that, in the hour of danger, we should shelter behind the English. That is not the Scottish way of looking at things at all. We are very proud of the fact that our young men and women have always been in the forefront of those who went to join the Colours whenever this country or any part of the Empire was threatened, and it is our desire that that shall always be, but, if if this Amendment were to be accepted, it would not be possible.
Conditions of war have changed in recent years. Today, the need is not only for men with stout hearts and stout arms, but for men skilled in the use of weapons and in the vast amount of technical equipment which is used in modern war. Today war comes very quickly, and men have to be trained and have to be prepared and capable to fit into the machine at a moment's notice. The Amendment simply means that no Scotsman would be prepared to do so, and it suggests that, at the outbreak of war, they would come forward, as they undoubtedly always have done and as I hope they always will, quite unprepared to play their part in the defence of their own country. It means that, for many months after the outbreak of war, the defence of Scotland would be entrusted to men from South of the Border. What an indignity to put upon our people. We should have to rely for defence on English troops when the initial attack is being made and, in modern war, that initial attack may well be the heaviest attack of all.

Professor Gruffydd: May I interrupt? If the Scottish people are so warlike, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will get a fine volunteer Army.

Commander Galbraith: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made that point, and I will deal with it. It is not that we are so warlike, but we are determined to defend ourselves and our own country and not shelter behind the backs of other people. The hon. Member for Bridgeton

(Mr. Carmichael) suggested that people in Scotland were opposed to conscription, but I take rather a different view. We are a democratic people, and it seems to me that the first duty of a democratic people should be to defend the benefits which they obtain from the democratic system, and that everyone should be prepared to defend these things.
Now let me come to the voluntary system. The voluntary system means that, whenever danger threatens, the most adventurous and the most high-spirited of our people are the first to go and offer their services to their country. That might be all right when war comes once in 100 years. When that happens, it is perhaps right that the best of our citizens should go, but when we have had two wars within 25 years, I do not think it is right that the whole of the first impact of war should fall on the most adventurous and most high-spirited of our people. I believe that it is as a result of the great drain that fell upon these people resulting from the first world war that we have been so lamentably short of leaders in all sections of society through the intervening years. The voluntary system is not a democratic system at all.

Mr. Byers: May I interrupt? I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a very good case, but, on a pure point of logic, may I suggest to him that, when he says that the initial attack is going to be the most important and then says that we should not use volunteers, it becomes just nonsense?

Commander Galbraith: No, I do not. I say that the whole weight should not fall upon people who volunteer. Anyway, I do not suppose that even the hon. Gentleman who interrupted believes that it is a democratic way of raising an Army in these days or that this drain should fall upon those ready and willing to serve, and that they should have to bear the brunt, while others who wish to keep out and slack and laze are given the opportunity to do so.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is including very many more people than are actually resident in Scotland.

Commander Galbraith: You will realise, I am quite sure, Mr. Beaumont, that I was merely speaking of these people in


Scotland, and that I was referring the whole matter to Scotland. Scotland feels, and it is a quite sincere belief, that, so long as war is possible, and so long as it is necessary to defend our country, every single one of our citizens should be trained to play their part and that there should be no exceptions whatsoever. That, in my opinion, is the true sentiment of the people of Scotland. I hope, therefore, that this House will reject this Amendment out of hand.

Mr. Stephen: I rise to support this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has told us that, in his opinion, Scotland wants this, that and the other. But I would remind him that, in this particular matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) comes more freshly from the electorate than does the hon. and gallant Gentleman. My hon. Friend put this matter very distinctly to the electorate in his election address, and he made it known where he stood. He polled the majority of the votes in the constituency, whereas the candidate who belonged to the party above the Gangway, had a most miserable vote; he polled only half the number of votes polled by the Conservative candidate at the General Election.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) polled a majority of the votes cast in the by-election?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid I cannot allow this line of argument to continue.

Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order. As the original assertion was allowed, Mr. Beaumont, is it not possible for the hon. Member now to withdraw it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot indicate to the hon. Member whether he should or should not withdraw it. I only say that it is out of Order to pursue the matter.

Mr. Stephen: I am very sorry, Mr. Beaumont, that I am not to be allowed to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this connection. I still stand by what said, that the hon. Member for Bridgeton polled a majority of the votes in the constituency, as, otherwise, he would not be here.
The Committee will know—there has already been some indication that hon. Members do know—that this Amendment proposes to leave out "Great Britain" and to insert "England." I want to deal with that, in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). As Members representing Scottish constituencies, we decided that we would only put the point of view of Scottish people. If English Members in the Committee have a similar view about the matter, we left it to them to move the necessary Amendment. We are of the opinion that the Scottish people are entirely against this Bill, and against the imposition of conscription upon Scotland as a permanent feature of the life of the people there. An hon. Member dissents from my statement—

6.45 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: He might be right.

Mr. Stephen: He might be wrong. My opinion is just as good as his as to the feeling in Scotland. As far as we can judge, there is a very strong feeling in Scotland against the imposition of conscription upon the people of our country. There is a further reason. Some of us feel very strongly that, so far as our country is concerned, we have been treated very badly in many respects since the Treaty of Union of 1770. That treaty—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going back a long way.

Mr. Stephen: Perhaps, Mr. Beaumont, if you would allow me to do so, I would make it plain that, since the Treaty of Union has not been respected, I am in Order in claiming that when the terms of that treaty are recognised, the people of Scotland might be willing to accept the imposition of conscription.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now a long way from the Amendment, and I cannot allow him to continue any further that line of argument.

Mr. Stephen: With respect, I am always willing to accept the decision of the Chair in these matters, and, therefore, I will not pursue the subject.
I wish to stress what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton about the economic position of Scotland. Much of the industry of Scotland is the


heavy industry, and the imposition of conscription is going to have very serious economic consequences on that industry. During the years of depression we had to suffer much more than the Midlands. The imposition of conscription in peacetime will have a disastrous effect on Scottish industry, and will greatly increase our troubles. It will impose grave economic consequences upon our people, as the result of its effect on the iron and steel industry. The fact that young men in the mining industry are to be exempted from this Measure will have its consequences on all the main industries in Scotland. I can see that in days to come much of the industry of Scotland will be serving the interests of England. It will mean a big increase in unemployment. We are already experiencing in Scotland a greater amount of unemployment than in any other part of the country. If Scotland is not excluded, unemployment in Scotland will be greatly increased, and the economic consequences to Scotland will be very great. Conscription is morally wrong and, despite what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok, the people of Scotland do not desire to take part in something which is opposed to their belief in freedom. I hope many Members from the other side of the Border will support the Scottish Members in rejecting the imposition of conscription upon our country.

Mr. McGovern: I rise first to state that I am opposed to conscription. I would also like to explain that at the General Election I gave an undertaking that I would oppose conscription in every shape and form, and I believe in redeeming the pledges that I make to the people in my area. On Principle, I am opposed to singling out one part of the United Kingdom and saying that Scotland should be exempted. But I would also point out that conscription has never been made an issue in Scotland and I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that, as a democrat, I disagree that it has ever been presented to, and endorsed by, the nation. A tremendous departure in principle of this kind ought to have been put to the people, and if they had agreed to conscription, I, as a democrat, would have accepted the mind and will of the population. I firmly believe that if the question was put to the

people not only of Scotland, but of the country as a whole, they would relegate this Measure to the scrap heap. I support the exclusion of Scotland, because there is the exclusion of Northern Ireland, of the miners of this country and, of ministers of religion.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that we are at the moment discussing the exclusion of Scotland.

Mr. McGovern: But there are ministers of religion in Scotland, strange as it may seem. I am dealing with the exclusion of ministers of religion in Scotland, because nobody has been so keen on war as they, and nobody so keen on keeping out of it. Therefore, if we are to have all these sections exempted in Scotland, if the defence of Scottish interests is to be dependent upon certain sections of the community who happen to be outside these provisions, the whole of the population should be excluded. To the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok who referred to mandates, and to the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) who intervened on the question of majorities, I would say that there was a complete majority in the Bridgeton area against conscription, because Guy Aldred and the Scottish Nationalist, with Jimmy Carmichael, stood against conscription. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am referring to the names of people when they were fighting the election, and not when they had become Members of Parliament. There was a complete majority against conscription in that area. I would be prepared to take almost any area in Scotland and challenge the people; I am sure I would get their backing, and the backing of even the Tory young men against this Measure, just as the Tory young men in Ireland and in other places were against it.

Professor Savory: No.

Mr. McGovern: No, it is the old men like the hon. Gentleman who interrupted who are keen on it. Hon. Members are probably familiar with the old rhyme:
If I were but a younger man
I'd don the khaki clothes,
The first and foremost in the van
Against our country's foes,
And I would tell you, what is more.
There'd be no Hun alive,
If I were only twenty-four
Instead of sixty-five.


I am not seeking the opinion of old men. I appreciate that, at my age, I ought to be backing this conscription Measure. But I am seeking neither the opinion of the old men in Scotland nor of the vested interests. I would like to know what the young men in Scotland think of this Measure which proposes to conscript them. If the young men said they wanted conscription and wished to be in the Services, I would accept that position. I have a boy aged 18, and I asked him what he wished to do. I have another son, a conscientious objector. The boy of i8 said, "I want to go," and he is now in the Air Force. In fact, I had to ask the Minister of Labour to have him called up early. That boy said to me, "I also have got to consider my conscience." That is the free house which we have. If they want to go, they go, and if they do not want to go, they do not. Their father did the same thing at that age. Where I differ from my friends, the pacifists, is that my antagonism to conscription is fundamental, but my objection to national defence is not to national defence as such. If I thought the young men of Scotland were being conscripted to defend Scotland, England or Wales, I would be prepared to accept it, but I want to know why they are going to be conscripted. I want to know whether they are to fight on foreign shores, to suppress natives and other people who are struggling for their emancipation. Therefore, if I were to say to the people of Scotland, "Are you prepared to defend your own country?" I believe they would; I believe there would be no need for conscription, and they would all rally to the call.

7.0 p.m.

My fundamental objection to the war all along was that it was not to defend Scotland, England or Wales, but was to fight in a foreign field for some matter about which I knew nothing, and to which I was committed by politicians and diplomats in the past. Therefore, I say that in regard to Scotland I am opposed to conscription. I shall fulfil the pledge I made to the electors, and I will vote for this Amendment if it is pressed to a Division, on the general principle of opposition to conscription, and because, therefore, I am against it applying to Scotland as a whole. As an individual, I believe I am conforming with the will and desire

of the great mass of the people who made sacrifices in the war, believing that such a Bill would never be introduced by a Labour Government.

Major Lloyd: I hope the Committee will not be under any illusions about the Amendment put forward by two of the "three musketeers," so ably supported by the third who has now left them, and will not think that their views represent the views of the people of Scotland. They never have done. They have always represented the views of the three individuals concerned and their constituents, and never any more. Here we have it happening all over again: these three hon. Members, holding again: views with great sincerity—for which we pay them tribute and respect—but in no way representing the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland. The Amendment itself, though sincerely expressed and sincere in intention, does, in fact, cast a slur upon the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland know it, and repudiate the suggestion that they do not want to join with Great Britain in this great act of self-sacrifice to safeguard the nation in its hour of need. I deplore the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) included a slur against those who joined the Army and served in Scottish regiments, and a suggestion that they were of no value, and could be of no value, to their country in the war.

Mr. Carmichael: I have no objection to the hon. and gallant Member making an attack on any speech I make, but I made no slurring reference to any person who joined the Forces, at any time, of his own free will. Whatever may be said of me, whether I disagree with a person or not, I give him the credit of doing a thing honestly and with the best motives. I have no intention of casting a slur on people, irrespective of their walk of life or of the occupation in which they are engaged.

Major Lloyd: That explanation is acceptable, subject to exact quotation of the words of the hon. Member. I did not suggest he made a personal attack upon a member of a Scottish regiment. Of course not. I said he attacked the reputation of Scotland and the reputation of Scotland's regiments when he suggested—to use almost his exact words—


that Scotland is and has been quite unable to develop any army which could be of any use to Scotland in war. I say that is a deliberate slur, and in fact an insult, not so much an individual or personal attack. I recognise that the hon. Member never meant to make a personal attack, but that is a definite slur upon the traditions of Scottish regiments, and a more deliberate slur upon the people and soldiers of Scotland. But do not let us get excited about the views of the "three musketeers," who for long years have represented merely themselves and nothing else but their own constituents in Scotland.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: For this Amendment to be accepted one of two considerations would have to be put forward. It would have to be proved, either that the Scottish people were against this Bill so strongly that they were not prepared to march with great Britain as a whole, or, alternatively, that the damage which would be done to Scottish economy would be so great in comparison with the damage done to the country as a whole that Scotland could not bear it. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) did attempt to adumbrate the second argument, but he gave no proof whatsoever that Scotland would be worse affected by this Measure than England. Unless that can be proved the argument falls.
With regard to the former argument, it has a certain force, and it is true that the question has not been put directly to the Scottish people. But we are the representatives of the Scottish people here. The hon. Member for Camlachie argued that the Scottish people were opposed to conscription. Of course, they are opposed to conscription, as, I suppose, are 95 per cent. of the people in this country. But if they can be shown that there is a necessity for it, surely, the Scottish people are stout enough to face up to that and to take their share in it? The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) argued that one atom bomb or 24 hours of atomic warfare would wipe out the richest part of Scotland and make all conscription there useless. I understand that was his argument. What difference would it make whether there were national service or not in Scotland? Does he suppose, if England went to war, that

there would be any less likelihood of atom bombs on Glasgow and Edinburgh or of the whole economy of Scotland being wiped out? Surely, that argument is utter nonsense?
Quite apart from anything else, what a ridiculous situation we should be in if there were conscription in England and no conscription in Scotland. There would be bound to be people in England who would be anxious to avoid conscription; what would be easier for them than to go up to Scotland? That might, of course, be one way of carrying out the recommendations of the Montague Barlow Report, and of spreading the population more evenly right up to the Highlands of Scotland. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is simple. Is Scotland to be separated from England in the matter of preparedness? This Bill is not so much a matter of commitments as of preparedness. Is Scotland to be separated from England in that? I am quite certain that the vast majority of the people of Scotland, although they do not like conscription, would not only be proud to take their part in preparing themselves to do their duty, but would demand the right to have a similar Bill if one were passed for England.

Mr. Hogg: I rise specifically because I represent an English constituency. This Amendment proposes to leave out "Great Britain" and to insert "England." It is because I contest that language that I rise to oppose it and protest against it. The issue in this Debate is not, of course, whether or not we agree with the voluntary or the compulsory principle. That is something which was decided on the Second Reading of the Bill. The issue is not even whether we think Scotland as a whole, England as a whole, or Wales as a whole is for or against the voluntary principle. No, that is not the issue. The issue is whether there can be local option for this island in matters affecting defence policy.

Mr. McGhee: It is being given to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hogg: We shall be discussing the special position of Northern Ireland in the course of Debate on another Amendment. It is for that reason only that I do not follow the hon. Member's interesting interjection. I do not pretend to know the constituents of hon. Members


who represent Welsh or Scottish constituencies better than they. I assume in their favour that what they say about their constituents' opinions is true. But I am perfectly sure that I am speaking, not only for my own constituents in Oxford, or even for many English compatriots, but for all the inhabitants of this island when I say, that whatever our opinions about voluntary or compulsory service, we would far prefer that this question was decided for us all as a whole by this Parliament than that we should seek to try to run away and hide in an attic in matters of defence if the common house started to burn down.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentlemen who put down this Amendment, and I think that it rather begs the whole issue. They have taken a stand and have openly declared that they are against conscription for everybody. I can quite understand people who are objecting to conscription for everybody continuing their objections, but what I cannot understand is that they will so denude the resources from which we can draw our Forces in one part of the country as to make it doubly certain that the other part will have a greater measure of conscription. I can admire the pacifist who says, "I am against it for everybody. What is bad for me is bad for everyone." But the hon. Gentlemen do not say that. What they say is, "Let England do the fighting." The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said, "Leave all the fighting to England."

Mr. Carmichael: What I said in the course of my remarks was that if England desires to do all her fighting, then we have no objection.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I carefully noted down what was said. Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman detracts from what he said and now wants Scotland to take part?

Mr. Carmichael: No.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument does not apply.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman knows our attitude on conscription.

Mr. Stephen: It is the same.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is not the same as my attitude. I have never taken the purely pacifist line in this matter. In any

case we are discussing something for the future and let us hope that we are deciding on the merits of the case without dragging in what may have been one's reputation or lack of reputation in the past. Let me deal now with the next point which was made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment—the effect of the contribution made by Scotland upon her economy. Is it so large? The hon. Gentleman talked about 100,000 men, but the annual contribution from Scotland to the Defence Forces under this Bill is 16,000. Do I understand that the economy of Scotland will fall to the ground because 16,000 young men are going into the Forces?

Sir William Darling: There are 100,000 unemployed under the hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Let us deal with one matter at a time. I do not want to have to refer to what used to be the case in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said that in his view conscription was morally wrong, and in that statement he found support from a few quarters of the Committee. It is morally wrong for Scotland, but one of the hon. Gentlemen who supported him agreed that this country had to be defended and that Scotland had to be defended. If Scotland has to be defended surely we must have the necessary Forces, and surely Scotland should play her part in her own defence? That really is the position, and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentlemen who have moved this Amendment have not attempted to create this precedent earlier and exclude Scotland from the benefits of the legislation that has already been passed by thin House.

Sir W. Darling: Very doubtful benefits.

Mr. Carmichael: The Parliamentary Secretary voted for it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In all the legislation which has been passed by this Government no one has moved that Scotland should be excluded from its benefits.

Mr. James Hudson: Yes we did—on British Restaurants.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I overlooked that possible exception. I think that for once the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was absolutely right. In this House we


are met from all parts of the country to decide common policy for the country as a whole and, by and large, to try to do the best we can for the whole nation. Surely what we do is deserving of defence by everybody all over the country? We accept the benefits and privileges decided

upon by this House of Commons and we ought to accept the common obligation to defend our country. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words" Great Britain "stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 391; Noes, 18.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[7.15 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Hall, W. G.


Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Hardy, E. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Haughton, S. G.


Astor, Hon. M.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Haworth, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Delargy, H. J.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Diamond, J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Digby, S. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bacon, Miss A.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds, N. N.
Hewitson, Captain M.


Balfour, A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hicks, G.


Barlow, Sir J.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Hobson, C. R.


Barstow, P. G.
Drayson, G. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Barton, C.
Drewe, C
Holman, P.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Driberg, T. E. N.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
House, G.


Belcher, J. W.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hoy, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hubbard, T.


Bennett, Sir P.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Berry, H.
Duthie, W. S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Beswick, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edelman, M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Bing, G. H C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hynd J. B. (Attercliffe)


Binns, J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Irving, W. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Janner, B.


Blyton, W. R
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Boardman, H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Boothby, R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jennings, R.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Boyd-Garpenter, J. A.
Ewart, R.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bramall, E. A.
Farthing, W. J.
Keeling, E. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Field, Capt. W. J
Keenan, W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Foot, M. M.
Kenyon, C.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Foster, J. C. (Northwich)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Brown, George (Belper)
Fox, Sir G.
Key, C. W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
King, E. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Burke, W. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kinley, J.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Kirby, B. V.


Callaghan, James
Gage, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Carson, E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gammons, L. D.
Lang, G.


Challen, C.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Lavers, S.


Champion, A. J.
Gibbins, J.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Chater, D.
Gilzean, A.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Leslie, J. R.


Cobb, F. A.
Grant, Lady
Lever, N. H.


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Levy, B. W.


Collins, V. J.
Grey, C. F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Gridley, Sir A.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Grierson, E.
Lindgren, G. S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Grimston, R. V.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Corvedale, Viscount
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Logan, D. G.


Crawley, A.
Gunter, R. J
Low, Brig. A. R. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Guy, W. H
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.




Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Pitman, I. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


McAdam, W.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Swingler, S.


McAllister, G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Sylvester, G. O.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Popplewell, E.
Symonds, A. L.


Mack, J. D.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Price, M. Philips
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


McKinlay, A. S.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


McLeavy, F.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Pritt, D. N.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Pryde, D. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Raikes, H. V.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ramsay, Major S.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Randall, H. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Tiffany, S.


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Titterington, M. F.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Tolley, L.


Marples, A. E.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Marquand, H. A.
Renton, D.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Rhodes, H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Viant, S. P.


Maude, J. C.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Walkden, E.


Medlicott, F.
Ropner, Col. L.
Walker-Smith, D.


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamotow, E.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Moody, A. S.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Watson, W. M.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Weitzman, D.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Sharp, Granville
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mort, D. L.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
West, D. G.


Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Moyle, A.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Naylor, T. E.
Simmons, C. J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Skeffington, A. M.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
Skinnard, F. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Wilkins, W. A.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Nutting, Anthony
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


O'Brien, T.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Oldfield, W. H.
Snadden, W. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Oliver, G. H.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Solley, L. J.
Williamson, T.


Paget, R. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willis, E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Palmer, A. M. F.
Spence, H. R.
Wise, Major F. J.


Pargiter, G. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Woodburn, A.


Parker, J.
Steele, T.
Woods, G. S.


Parkin, B. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wyatt, W.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
York, C.


Pearson, A.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Pearl, Capt. T. F.
Stross, Dr. B.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)



Pickthorn, K.
Stubbs, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Piratin, P.
Studholme, H. G.
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Daines.




NOES.


Ayles, W. H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Richards, R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Longden, F.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Wadsworth, G.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)



Grenfell, D. R.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Mulvey, A.
Mr. Stephen and Mr Carmichael.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order. It would appear that the Committee have now decided that the words "Great Britain" shall form part of the Clause. In these circumstances, may I ask, Major Milner, which of the Amendments your predecessor suggested might be discussed together, with separate votes at the end, are in Order? I take it that

the next Amendment on the Order Paper cannot now be put, because it can only be put by proposing again the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," which is the Question on which the Committee have already taken a decision. I take it that we cannot discuss that Question again.

7.30 p.m.

The Chairman: I propose now to call a manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) to insert the words "and Northern Ireland," after the words "Great Britain." I then propose to call for, I hope, a short discussion, the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd)— in page I, line II, after "Britain," to insert "other than in Wales or Monmouthshire." Then I propose to call the Amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Defence—in page 1, line 15, to leave out "eighteen," and to insert "twelve."

Mr. Silverman: I understand that the manuscript Amendment which you propose to call, Major Milner, is to alter the form of the Amendment on the Paper and make it more like the form of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). I know that the question of a manuscript Amendment is entirely within the discretion of the Chair, and I do not propose to say anything about it because it is not my business, and I am not entitled to do so, but I think it proper to call your attention to the fact that at the beginning of this discussion your predecessor suggested that all these Amendments might be discussed together, and divided upon separately. That can only be done with the consent of every Member of the Committee, and that arrangement could not be carried out because the mover of the next Amendment, and his supporters, were not content. I want to suggest that having not been content with an arrangement that would have given them a general discussion, and a separate vote on the point they wish to put forward, they ought not now to be able to put in a written Amendment. It would be unusual if they were now enabled to put in a manuscript Amendment to get back to the position which the Deputy-Chairman offered to them, and which was rejected.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman's account is not quite correct. General exception was taken to the proposal by the Chair. I asked whether it was not the case that where the Chair had suggested that there should be a discussion, and exception was taken to that in any

part of the Committee, the Chairman did not then, by precedent and practice, insist in his suggestion. The Deputy-Chairman was good enough to say that that was so.

Mr. S. Silverman: The position as put by the noble Lord is quite right, and I thought I said so myself. The arrangement was not carried out because objection was taken to it, principally by the mover of the next Amendment. Having rejected an arrangement which would have given the hon. Member all he wants I say that he ought not now to put in a manuscript Amendment to get back to that arrangement.

The Chairman: I do not take that view. The Committee has taken exception to a general Debate, which, I think, would have saved time. The Chair has an undoubted right to select Amendments, and may exercise that right more strictly than might otherwise be the case. I have accepted the hon. Baronet's Amendment to insert the words "and Northern Ireland," but I hope that those who speak on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) will be brief.

Sir R. Ross: I beg to move, in page I, line after "Britain," to insert "and Northern Ireland."
It is curious that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) should have objected to this Amendment. Either he was out of the Committee just now, or his attention must have wandered. It was pointed out by the Deputy-Chairman that there were two Amendments which involved the Question that the words "Great Britain" should stand part of the Clause being put. The Deputy-Chairman said that if one of those was called, the other would not be called. In order to save that Amendment the form of words that I have now moved was handed in at that time, and was accepted by the Chair. In any event—

Mr. Delargy: On a point of Order. What has all this to do with the Amendment?

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to leave that to me. The hon. Baronet was dealing rather too much with that point. He was entitled to refer to it in passing, but so far he has not spoken on the Amendment.

Sir R. Ross: It was suggested that we should be deprived of speaking after having fulfilled the directions of the Chair, and I thought it was only proper and fitting that I should answer the points made, at much greater length, by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I have certainly no desire to talk about procedure, or raise unnecessary points of Order. The effect of the Amendment would be to include Northern Ireland in the Bill on the same terms as all the rest of the United Kingdom. I am encouraged by the somewhat devastating assent to the inclusion of Scotland which we have just had, and I rather tremble lest the men of Harlech will not be successful when their turn comes. I have never been one who has been fond of conscription for its own sake. It is of necessity forced on us now by the powers of organisation which are inherent in modern States. I think the world is much less happy since decisions have been taken by nations in arms, and by great organisations. The world was more preferable when decisions were taken by small professional armies. I would like to see a world so peaceful that it would be necessary to have only small professional armies of people who felt that service in such armies was their métier. At present, it is essential to have large conscript Armies, Air Forces, and Navies.
The young man who goes into the Forces may obtain advantage from it, and will do so, if he uses his opportunities as he should, and makes the most of them. For a community it is certainly a burden, and, therefore, in moving this Amendment my hon. Friends and I are offering to accept a burden, which is borne by the rest of the country, in the application of national service, for the first time, to Northern Ireland. It has always been our policy that we stand by Great Britain in good times and in bad. If we accept the benefits which we get from that long association, we must also bear the burden if we are allowed to do so. It is for that that I am asking today because, curiously enough, we seem to lack a certain amount of appreciation in this House, and from the back benches opposite I have never heard anything but sneers and jeers at my province. I cannot think of anything more which we could have done in the war, or before it, to play our part in the great conflict which recently ended in victory. I thought that

it was proper to say this very briefly because the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) dealt with it fairly fully on the Second Reading Debate.
The first time that this question came up was in May, 1939, when the war was on the horizon and the Government at last felt that it was necessary to bring in the National Service Bill. In that Bill as originally drafted the whole of the United Kingdom was included, but when the Bill came before the House, an Amendment was moved to leave out Northern Ireland. We resented that. Although it was on the eve of war, we resented being left out. I think that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was a little harsh towards the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) in jeering at him for not being in the war; but he was in the previous war.

Mr. McGovern: I have never hidden the fact that I am a pacifist, and that I have never been in anyway concerned in fighting. I was not casting a reflection on the hon. Gentleman. I was quoting, in general, men of 65. I have every admiration for the other man's point of view.

Sir R. Ross: I accept the explanation that it was not aimed at the hon. Member, although that was the impression I had at the time. I have long been in honourable conflict with the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I have always accepted what he tells me. I appreciate the genuineness of his views, although they are not mine. This Bill, as originally brought in by the Unionist and Conservative Government, included Northern Ireland, and it was that Government which later excluded it. Therefore, I want to make it clear here that, as Ulster Unionist Members, we stand alone. We are not speaking for the Opposition because we stand in this respect as Ulster Unionist Members, and we shall divide on this question and put in our own token. We felt that this was a burden which we ought, in all honour, to bear. Everyone voted against it, and I think that it was most unfortunate that that should have happened, because I thought then, as I think now, that to have introduced this would have been opposition, and organised opposition, which in war would be injudicious. Although in 1941 the question was raised—I was then in the Army, so I do not know the intimate history of it—


there was no objection from Ulster. It was even thought, probably quite rightly, that that was a bad time to do it.
Now that we are at peace, and when the number of men called up for service in the Army will be far smaller, the period of their service far shorter, and the duties they are called upon to perform infinitely less hazardous, I think that we should correct the anomaly of leaving out one part of the United Kingdom while including all the rest. There are one or two special considerations which I would like to put before the Committee. It never really seeped through to the War Office, or to the various Defence Ministries, that throughout the war we were on a voluntary basis, which involved very great hardship. I knew of many cases in which families and employees of firms had joined up and the old men said they would carry on. When I tried to get one of the young men out, the case was treated as if it were in England, where it was the same for all, whereas, being on a voluntary basis, there were firms and families in Northern Ireland from which no one had gone. These firms were getting the business of those from which all the young people had joined up. I think that we should avoid that in the future because it is not right that when so many men have to be serving the country in the Armed Forces, the burden should fall exclusively upon the patriotic and loyal. It is very discouraging when a man has joined up to find that his job has gone to someone with whom he was in disagreement on many points. Therefore, I think that, as an act of justice, the National Service Bill is preferable to the selection of one particular type which is patriotic and loyal.
There is another special consideration which applies to us, and which will continue to apply in the future. It will become necessary for steps to be taken to prevent anyone who wishes to evade national service from crossing over to Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary is well aware that I have constantly complained of the freedom of travel by sea and otherwise to Northern Ireland which has been neglected and, in fact, worsened by this Government, and, therefore, we must have a boundary created to prevent the leakage of any of those liable to come up for service through their being able to go to an area still in the United

Kingdom where they are not liable to service. That would be a disadvantage and an irksome matter for those who live in the Province. Boundaries should be between Northern Ireland and Eire, which I think was described by Mr. de Valera as "a Republic associated in some external matters with the British Commonwealth of Nations." That to my mind is where the division should come.
I have tried to keep my argument in as small a compass as possible, and I would say, in conclusion, that this is a case in which we feel bound, if we are to accept the benefits, to bear the burdens also. I do not expect to have any bouquets from the back benches opposite, and I feel that I will probably get the usual shower. But definitely this is the stand we take up—that we are part of the United Kingdom and that we stand by Great Britain, in good times or in bad. Ours is not a community which seeks only to benefit, by trying to avoid the burdens; as I say in good times and in bad, we stand together.

Mr. Delargy: I think the Committee will not take long to make up their minds what to do with this Amendment, and I do not intend to waste much time on it either. The Committee will certainly reject this Amendment, because every person who is likely to be affected by it, directly or indirectly, does not wish to see it carried. First of all the Government would certainly not, because the Government must realise that it would be not only difficult, but practically impossible to implement the Measure at all. The Government must certainly realise that we would be in an absolutely absurd position to have conscription in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland when it would create such deep resentment in the other 26 in the same country. The Government realise and prove it in this Measure that when we really get down to fundamental things that there should not be two separate States in Ireland at all.
The next people who are likely to be affected are the people of Ireland. All the people in Ireland most bitterly resent any such Amendment as this, because any intelligent Irishman—and they are, of course, an enormous majority—cling to the belief—and there are certainly some grounds for the belief—that the country of Ireland belongs to the Irish people, and should be governed by the Irish


people. Consequently, any intelligent Irishman will certainly object to another Irishman, no matter where he lives, whether he lives in Portadown or Ballyjamesduff, being conscripted by an outside Power. Thirdly, the Unionists themselves are not really serious in urging that this Amendment should be carried. They, of course, are obliged for political purposes to make a certain gesture—

Sir R. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman, who sits for an English Division— although one would not think so—go into the Lobby with me and see whether we are in earnest or not? In my part of the country we are in earnest.

Mr. Delargy: It is exceedingly easy to go into the Lobby when we are absolutely certain that there will only be a few people there with us. I say quite frankly that the Ulster Unionists are not serious about this Measure; that it is something which for political reasons and to keep up the pretence of loyalty they feel obliged to do. But if they thought for one moment that their bluff would be called, and that they would have a majority in the Lobby tonight, they would be scared stiff.

Professor Savory: I feel that on this question we want some enlightenment from the Government. When this Bill was introduced, no reference was made to, and no explanation was given so far as I have heard for, the exclusion of Northern Ireland, and when the Minister of Defence summed up the Debate in this House he made no reply to the plea put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir. H. O'Neill). The only reference that I have been able to find in HANSARD is that in the Debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister said cm 12th November, 1946:
There is the question of Northern Ireland. While the Government are fully conscious of a desire of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland to take their full share of the burden of military service as partners of the United Kingdom, they have come to the conclusion, after weighing all the considerations, that the best plan will be to follow the scheme adopted in the National Service Acts and apply the new legislation to Great Britain only,"[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th November, 1946; Vol. 43o, c. 41.]
As the Prime Minister said that the Government had weighed all the con-

siderations, I think we are entitled to ask representatives of the Government what were those considerations, because I think we have a right to some explanation of this exclusion of Northern Ireland. Here, in London, again and again my friends say to me, "But surely you have got conscription. You are part of the United Kingdom. Why is it that you have a separate system?" They do not understand the position. They think that in some way it is the fault of the Government of Northern Ireland. They do not realise that under the Act of 1920, all the Military, Naval and Air Services are reserved. These are reserved Services over which neither the Government nor the Parliament of Northern Ireland has any control whatsoever. They are the province exclusively of the Imperial Government and, therefore, the Imperial Government are responsible. Now why, once more, have the Imperial Government taken upon themselves to exclude Northern Ireland? In order to explain that, we have to go back a little way in history and look at the question from a scientific, impartial and objective standpoint such as would be expected from the representative of a university.

Mr. Delargy: It depends on which university.

Professor Savory: The first Conscription Act introduced into this country since the time of Cromwell was the Act of 1916. The Statute was passed on 25th May, 1916. It was intended by the British Government that Ireland should be included in that Measure, but at that time there were 80 Nationalist Members in this House and they brought tremendous pressure to bear on the Government which was dependent on them for very existence as a Government, in order to exclude Ireland. That was done by the Act of 1916, to the great regret and in spite of the opposition of the Irish of the North. But during this terrible year of 1916, our losses on the Continent were staggering. We had that massacre at Thiepval, and on the Somme, and it was necessary, therefore, for His Majesty's Government to look round and see what they could do in order to improve recruiting. Again they thought of Ireland and they were determined to include it, but another protest was made, this time on 6th October, 1916, when I find that Mr. John Redmond said that


conscription would be the most fatal thing that could happen to Ireland.

Mr. McGovern: On a point of Order. I do not want to curb the discussion but I want to ask why Irish Members are being allowed to make great ramifications in debating this Amendment while in the Debate on the Scottish question, any historical reference was suppressed by the Chair.

8.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member for Queen's University is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Professor Savory: Perhaps I might be allowed to refer briefly to the subject. I come now to the year 1918.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is very far from the Amendment.

Professor Savory: In order to explain why the Amendment is necessary, I think you will agree, Sir Charles, that I must give the historical background, because I think hon. Gentlemen are not aware that in 1918 an Act was actually passed which included Ireland. The whole of Ireland, Northern Ireland as well as Southern Ireland, was included in the Act of 1918.

The Temporary Chairman: This Amendment really only relates to Northern Ireland.

Professor Savory: At that time, we must remember, the Amendment could only relate to Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Logan: In giving this narration of Irish history, will the hon. Member give us that of Grattan's Parliament?

Professor Savory: I should be only too delighted, because I have studied it very minutely. The Act of 1918 was never applied, because of the agitation which was carried on against it. The Viceroy, Lord French, said he would give Ireland a chance and would revert once more to voluntary recruitment. Unfortunately, the agitation carried on against the meetings in favour of voluntary recruitment—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member really cannot pursue this subject. He is far from the Amendment.

Professor Savory: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, and I come to what relates solely to Northern Ireland, that is, the Act of 1939. In the 1939 Act Northern Ireland was included, and in fact the very words which we proposed to insert today, in our original Amendment, were to be found in the Act of 1939 as it was first presented. Unfortunately, very great agitation was carried on and immense pressure was brought to bear on the Government, and on 2nd May Mr. de Valera stated in the Chamber of Deputies in Dublin that his Government had protested to the British Government in the strongest terms against the threatened imposition of conscription in Northern Ireland. Later, he characterised this proposal as an act of aggression. What sequence of events explained the change which took place I leave to the imagination of hon. Gentlemen, but only two days later, when Mr. Chamberlain moved the Second Reading of the Military Training Bill, he declared that it had been decided to exclude Northern Ireland. The circumstances which followed have been explained by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), who told us that when that Amendment was put by Sir Samuel Hoare, the Home Secretary responsible for Northern Ireland, it was opposed by all the Northern Ireland Members, who went into the Division Lobby against it.
There can be no doubt whatever of their sincerity, and I am sorry that the last speaker, whom I refrained from interrupting, should have brought forward these suspicions, because this is what Mr. Chamberlain said on that occasion. He said that Lord Craigavon had come over to London specially in order to insist on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland should be included in the Bill, and went on:
The people of Northern Ireland are above all loyal to the Crown and to the connection with the rest of the United Kingdom, and nothing would cause so much resentment in Ulster as the suggestion that they should in any way be relieved of burdens or sacrifices which were being borne by their fellow citizens over here. When I saw Lord Craigavon on this matter, he vehemently asserted that position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1939; Vol. 346, c. 2104.]
Two years later, in 1941, after the glorious but catastrophic events of Dunkirk and the fall of France, again the Government were compelled to reconsider the position, and once more the question of including Northern Ireland was con-


sidered. In May of 1941 the late Sir Annesley Somerville, a distinguished and much lamented Member of Parliament for Windsor, asked if the Prime Minister remembered that the people of Northern Ireland had regarded the negative policy of His Majesty's Government as regards conscription as a slight on their patriotism, one practical result of which was that the good men volunteered, while the less good men got their jobs.
I myself ventured to put a question to the Prime Minister:
Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Cabinet of Northern Ireland was unanimous in 1939 in pressing that conscription should be applied to Northern Ireland?
On Wednesday, 20th May, the Prime Minister said in reply to questions:
This question has for some time past engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement about it on the first Sitting Day after this week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1941; Vol. 371, c. 1390–1]
That was before the House adjourned on the Wednesday, and in those days the House used to sit again on the following Tuesday. [HON. MEMBERS: "What year?"] In 1941. In the meantime an extraordinary event happened. Mr. de Valera summoned a special meeting of the Dail of Southern Ireland by telegram for the Monday, the very day before this House was to have an answer from the Prime Minister. What Mr. de Valera said was this. [HON. MEMBERS: "What year? "] I have already given the year; I said it was in 1941. Mr. de Valera said:
I made representations to the British Government urging as strongly as I could the reasons why the policy which they have hitherto pursued in this regard should not be changed. Should the British Government now go ahead to enforce conscription on the people of the Six Counties … the people of the two islands would be thrown back again into the old unhappy relations.
That was on the Monday. The next day this House met and the Prime Minister announced the Cabinet decision. In the meantime, during the weekend, almost the whole of the Government of Northern Ireland had come over here and made the strongest representations to the Prime Minister that Ulster should be included. The Inspector-General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary said that he was prepared to put the Measure through. A Bill was actually prepared and in print. Then the news arrived from Dublin, and un-

fortunately the Cabinet gave way once more. This was the answer given by the Prime Minister on 27th May, 1941:
We have come to the conclusion that at the present time, although there can be no dispute about our rights or about the merits, it would be more trouble than it is worth to enforce such a policy.
The right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) then put this very important question to the Prime Minister:
There is one point which I think, in fairness, the Prime Minister "—

The Temporary Chairman: Will the hon. Member now try to curtail his speech a little? It is getting rather long.

Professor Savory: I am coming very near the end, Sir Charles. I was telling the Committee that the right hon. Member for Antrim said:
There is one point which I think, in fairness, the Prime Minister would like to make clear. Was it not the view of the Government of Northern Ireland that conscription could be and should be applied?
This was the answer of the Prime Minister:
Yes, Sir. That was the view of the Government of Northern Ireland, for whose loyal aid and continued and constant support of our cause no words of praise can be too high. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1941; Vol. 371, E. 1718.]
I must apologise for having taken up the time of the Committee. My conclusion is a quotation which I should like to make from the chairman of the Labour Party in Northern Ireland, showing that that party agreed with the Unionist Party on this question. This is a statement made by Alderman Midgley, chairman of the Labour Party, on this very question, speaking on Saturday, 24th May, 1941. Alderman Midgley, afterwards the right hon. Harry Midgley of the Coalition Government as afterwards formed in Northern Ireland, said;
As chairman of the Northern Ireland Labour Party I am confident that if a vote were taken of the rank and file of the affiliated bodies to the Labour Party, there would be "—
and I call the attention of my Labour Friends opposite to this statement—
an overwhelming majority in favour of all round conscription of materials, financial resources and manpower for the purpose of meeting the menace of Nazi aggression. No amount of shortsighted political recrimination, harking back to the mistakes and shortcomings of the past or pandering to the animosities of those whose antagonism to Britain renders them mentally incapable of


realising the fundamentals of Nazi total warfare, will meet the present situation. A triumphant Germany and a defeated British Commonwealth would mean a subjugated Ireland, a subjugation besides which or compared to which all the mistakes and injustices of the past would be as nothing.
That quotation from the then chairman of the Labour Party expresses most emphatically what every one of us feels. He expressed on our behalf, what we repeat here today, that the fervent desire of the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland is to be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom. We desire to shoulder the same responsibilities as those undertaken by Great Britain. We object most strongly to any differentiation between ourselves and the people of England and Scotland.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mulvey: Let me contradict, in a few words, the statement which has just been made by the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) when he quoted Alderman Midgley as being the leader of Labour in Northern Ireland. That gentleman is not the leader of Labour in Northern Ireland, and while in fact he does dub himself leader, he is a representative of the capitalist party in Northern Ireland.
I can assure the Committee that I am here at the request of the people of my own views in Northern Ireland, and of people whom the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) is supposed to represent, and that they object to anything in the way of compulsory military service. They are all resisters. Much has been said about the Parliament of Northern Ireland and those who favoured conscription in 1939. As a matter of fact, it is on record, and hon. Members opposite must be fully aware of it, that the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland publicly declared during the last war that the introduction of conscription would create trouble. He did not say from what section the trouble would come. Possibly he was aware of the feeling of opposition within his own party. Possibly he was aware that on that occasion there were numbers of people in County Tyrone who had already made arrangements to cross the border into County Donegal.
The hon. Member who put down this Amendment in favour of compulsory military service has not shown that any source, even a Tory source, has made any demand for it. In fact, no party in Northern Ireland makes the slightest request for conscription. They are bitterly opposed to it. The voluntary system in Northern Ireland is adequate for the purposes for which it is required. I am not here for the purpose of minimising what has been done by Northern Ireland in the matter of service in the Forces, but I emphasise that hon. Members opposite and their friends in Northern ire-land would have the world believe that had Northern Ireland not been in the recent war Britain and her Allies would possibly have lost it. That is the inference to be drawn from their public statements, and one would naturally infer, therefore, that the system of voluntary service has their support. I could give figures that would place them in a very unfavourable light in the eyes of the public in the matter of the numbers who volunteered, but I would say that the majority were not of the Tory forces but rather of the party to which I belong.
This Amendment has been moved for a political purpose. It has been moved as a gesture of loyalty to this country, and, as one of the supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite told me a few days ago, it is just another attempt at political eyewash. In the recent war, there was a magnificent quota from the whole of Ireland on a voluntary basis. It is a pity that the figures for Southern Ireland do not seem to be available, because if those figures were placed alongside the figures for Northern Ireland, I think they would be a revelation to hon. Members. Hon. Members opposite cannot deny the valour of Irishmen in war service; they cannot deny that out of the volunteers from South Ireland, no fewer than eight received the Victoria Cross and a solitary one from Northern Ireland got the Victoria Cross.

The Temporary Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment deals only with Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mulvey: In pursuing the question of Northern Ireland, I would point out that that one Victoria Cross was won, not by a representative or supporter of the party opposite, but by one of us. Hon.


Members opposite cannot deny that a supporter of their own party in Portadown, (luring the recent war, publicly declared that it was the leader of the Southern Government who had saved the North from conscription. There was no protest from any side against that utterance because, in fact, it reflected the Tory viewpoint in Northern Ireland on this question. Reference has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry to the Border. It is a pity that the Border exists in our country. Let us hope the day will come when the Border will be abolished, and we shall join hand in hand. Ireland is a sister country of this country, and it would be well for Ireland and well for this country' if all the difficulties with which we are beset were shared, and we in Ireland, for our part, could render cooperation, helpfulness and friendliness to this country in time of peril and in time of peace.
An Ireland free and independent, and in the Commonwealth, will always be ready to render service, because it will be to the advantage of both countries. I will say, however, that that happy moment is riot likely to be reached if representatives from the House—and especially from the Benches opposite—go across to Northern Ireland and pay doubtful tributes to Northern Ireland's part in the recent war. Let us hope better counsels will prevail and efforts be made to settle this question, which should have been settled long ago, so that we may, as sister nations, work amicably for each other's advantage and for our own

Mr. Eden: He would indeed be a bold Englishman who sought to detain the Committee very long in the light of the eloquent speeches to which we have listened. There was one passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) which seemed to bring complete unity to all parts of the Committee, and certainly it was a passage which I can endorse: I refer to his remarks about the valour of Irish troops from wherever drawn. I think we also felt there were other warlike qualities which both parties in that country possess, and I felt that we had lost something here by the departure of the Irish Members I can only add, in support of what the hon. Member said, that it so happened that, for a while in the last war, I had the honour of serving with an Irish brigade

which contained battalions both from the North and the South, and I felt this evening for a short while that I was back in those conditions.
I shall not attempt to venture into the intricacies of Irish politics, but I feel that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), in what he said, obtained the sympathy of the Committee for the manner in which he presented his case, and that both he and the hon. Member who did not agree with him showed that they fought very gallantly themselves. What about our position in this matter? I shall not enter into history, for I have not an Irish memory, and I cannot go back far enough. I shall content myself with dealing with the immediate point before us. The Committee must bear in mind that this matter has been debated on many occasions before, and the Committee has to consider whether there are any real reasons for taking a different decision today from the decision that was taken previously. That decision was first taken in the Military Training Bill of May, 1939, and in the National Service Bill of September of the same year. In neither of those was any distinction made between the parts of Great Britain, and in neither of them was Northern Ireland included. I have listened very carefully to the speeches of both my hon. Friends, and I have very great sympathy for their point of view, but I cannot see any reason in principle for taking a different line now from the line that we took in respect of those Measures.
I admit the case is difficult, and I sympathise with the desire of my hon. and gallant Friend to be included in the Bill. I am not in the least discouraged from paying any tribute that I feel like paying to the part Northern Ireland played in the war. The use of those bases was vital to our victory. Nobody should deny, or try to minimise, that part. But that is not what we are asked to do. We can pass a unanimous vote of thanks for the part Northern Ireland played, but what we are asked to do is to decide whether to accept this Amendment. We cannot deny the fact that there is in Northern Ireland a minority where the political differences are different in character from those that exist in England or Scotland. That is the fundamental fact which I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend will deny; that is the fact which


makes us approach the problem of Northern Ireland, not in a different spirit, but with a knowledge that the factors are different from those which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. I have read through the previous Debates, and I cannot find any reason for modifying the views expressed in those Debates. Therefore, I can only say that, as far as my right hon. and hon. Friends on this Bench are concerned, we cannot feel that it would be a possible course to take to press the Government to take up a different position from that in which we joined at that time. I regret that, while we sympathise with the motives of my hon. and gallant Friend and the supporters of the Amendment, we do not feel it is possible to support the Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I feel that I must say a few words concerning the position that has arisen. For nearly 50 years of my life I took a part in the Irish movement, and I was very pleased indeed to see an end brought to the differences. This Amendment which has been brought forward resuscitates the old evils of the past, a thing that no one could have done without trouble if any number of Irish Members had been sitting on these Benches. Today, when the war is over, and we should be unifying the position of Ireland, there is this discordant note and this attempt to revive memories of the bitter past. I do not think it is the fair thing to do, in regard to the position of today. When I remember the sacrifices the Irish have made, and remember, too, that Ireland is still a nation, although divided, and that she always will be a nation, I feel it is an insult to the intelligence of this Committee for hon. Members to come along here, in 1947, in these troubled times, sounding this discordant note. I am convinced that the day of discord must pass. I am convinced that the relationship between the people of Northern Ireland, and of the South, East and West has to be brought closer—or the squatters' rights must cease to exist, and the squatters must get out and let the people of Ireland own the country.
This Amendment is likely, if carried, to create great difficulty. If it came into operation there would be differences between those who call themselves Irish and those who call themselves Unionists in

Northern Ireland. That difference would be very bitter. I remember some 10 years ago in the House of Commons, when the troubles in Belfast were at their height, and the people were suffering bloodshed in Ireland on 12th July, asking Mr. Baldwin to remove the barriers. He removed those barriers, and they have never been erected since that day in Northern Ireland. Would it not be better for us all to work hand in hand together, rather than to bring these propaganda Amendments and Motions forward from time to time? I think these differences ought to pass. The legislation of this country ought to be of a standard to match the crisis through which we are passing. We want friends today all over the world. I am fully convinced that we can earn good will in the neighbouring Isle, and even in Northern Ireland, if we bring forward legislation which is amicable and in the interests of the United Kingdom.
I am opposed to this Amendment because I feel that we have had a stability and peacefulness in England over the Irish question that we had never had before. I do not want that peacefulness disturbed. I want the people of Northern Ireland to have a little more commonsense, and a little more knowledge of what is going on, and not to bring such ridiculous propositions to the British House of Commons.

Major Haughton: I am very sorry, with reference to what my hon., and indeed, my lovable, Friend the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) said, that I cannot claim the distinction of having a V.C. However, I want to say one or two simple things. I have never been accused in the House of Commons of making a long speech, and the one I am about to make will, probably, be the shortest of all. I do not think we need delve back into history. As part of the United Kingdom, we in Northern Ireland claim the privileges and the very great credit that come from being part of the United Kingdom and of the Empire; and, on the other hand, we claim the right to bear the responsibilities of being part of the United Kingdom. As was shown by the tremendous vote in the Lobbies less than an hour ago, Scotland wants to take her full part in whatever the responsibility may be. This matter has been debated in this House in its various aspects, including the terms


of service, and I think that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, too. recognise that each is a part of the United Kingdom. All we are saying in this Committee tonight is that we want to be part of that United Kingdom, both in its benefits and its responsibilities.

Mr. John E. Haire: ; I am glad that the Committee has decided to give some serious attention to this matter after the levity with which it was approached earlier on, because I think there are a number of important points which deserve serious consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) raised a point with which I disagree, but I am sure that he and some others of my hon. Friends with whom I disagree will surely recognise that it is possible for us to disagree in this Committee regarding Northern Ireland, as well as on matters concerning Scotland and Wales, and, if I do disagree with them, I hope they will believe that I am making a serious and considered approach. The hon. Member for Platting said that it was not the business of this Committee to govern Ireland. This Bill is a Bill for the defence of Great Britain and for the defence of Ireland too, and I believe that the responsibility of Ireland for its own defence is as great as the responsibility of Great Britain for the defence of Ireland. Again I consider that, even in the event of war again, which God forbid, and with Northern Ireland finding itself involved it would be necessary for this country to go to its support. Here is a Bill which enables us to train for that dread possibility. Is it necessary to argue that the men of Northern Ireland, of whatever creed or class, would not accept the responsibility of training for the defence of their own country?
When the last war broke out, Northern Ireland found herself alongside Great Britain. Conscription was not imposed upon her, and I speak here with a certain amount of personal feeling, as I was then living in Northern Ireland. A voluntary system was introduced—I myself was a volunteer. A recruitment campaign took place, which was a complete failure. My hon. Friend the junior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) suggested, I believe, wrongly, that the voluntary system would enable Northern Ireland to obtain the necessary number of troops to make a contribution to a war

effort. It was not so in 1940, and I do not believe it would be so today, because here, we, in Great Britain, are unable to raise the necessary forces by a voluntary system. I am certain that Northern Ireland would not be able to raise them by a voluntary system either.
When the bombs fell on Belfast during the war, and did considerable damage— more damage, perhaps, than hon. Members in this Committee realise—they did not discriminate between class and creed. So, today, in determining the defence of Northern Ireland, we should not allow these party differences to intervene. If it is right for a mother's son in Birmingham —of whatever religion or politics—to be called up under this proposed system, then it is right for a mother's son in Belfast. Conscription is not popular in this country. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) who said that he considered there was no difference between the situation now and what it was in 1939, when Northern Ireland was excluded. There is a great difference. This is the first time that we have had conscription in peacetime. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it should not apply to Northern Ireland, it should equally not apply to this country.
This is not a popular Measure. It would equally not be popular in Northern Ireland if this Amendment were carried. But I am certain, from my knowledge of the men and women in Northern Ireland, that they would be willing to discharge their responsibilities in defence of their democratic system. After all, for what would we be defending Northern Ireland? We would be defending Northern and indeed Southern Ireland, to have freedom to determine by the ballot box—however much we may disagree with the franchise law in Northern Ireland, and we shall have an opportunity to say more of that in a later debate—in the fullness of time, what form of Government she should have.
I would submit to my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee that in Northern Ireland there is, if I may say so, what I consider to be a reactionary regime, somewhat politically backward, because the men and women of Northern Ireland have not developed that progressive instinct which we in this country have. [Interruption.] Hon. Members


may care to go and see for themselves. If we included in this Bill men from Northern Ireland, I believe that by mixing with their more progressive brothers from Great Britain there would be a greater leavening of thought. A year's training under this Bill would be a year of progressive education for Irishmen. Northern Ireland has a rather insular view, and I believe that by the integration of Northern Ireland and Great Britain in this Bill in a true unionism we would soon have them marching politically step by step with Great Britain. It has always been the policy of the Northern Ireland Government in past day's to march step by step with Great Britain. I believe that by making this demand, that they shall once again be allowed to march step by step with us, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and his hon. Friends who supported him, are making a worthy proposal, and one which should be supported.

Mr. Gage: Whatever may be the views held in different parts of this Committee as to the merits or demerits of this Bill, I think every hon. Member will agree that, if it is to work, it must apply to all parts of the country. It is because my hon. Friends and I believe that an important part of the country has been left out that we are proposing this Amendment. The Bill, as it stands, in spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) and by the hon. Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Delargy), is bitterly resented by the majority. I know that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone was right when he said that there was a minority who did not want conscription. I know that the party to which he belongs does not want it, but what he omitted to tell the Committee was that that party is quite ready to accept the privileges, the benefits of the higher standard of living, and the better social security which grow from our connection either directly Or indirectly with Great Britain. They are quite ready to accept those things, even if they will not accept the responsibility. That, indeed, is the difference between the party which he represents and my party.

Mr. Mulvey: May I remind the hon. Member that I referred to all parties as

being against this, and not only to my own party?

Mr. Gage: I quite agree with that. I was entirely agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, as far as his own party was concerned, but I was entirely disagreeing with him in so far as he was referring to the party to which I belong. I think the hon. Gentleman recognises that in that respect he is wrong. The point I was making was this. The difference between the two parties—and it has been emphasised before in this Debate—is that, whereas we want the privileges—and we are not so hypocritical as to say we do not—at the same time we want to bear our part of the responsibility. What is worse than the resentment which will be felt in Ulster, is the resentment which it will generate in this country. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) said—and I thought it was a strong point—that if we took two young men both 18 years of age, one in Belfast and one in Liverpool, between which places there is a great deal of traffic, and the young man in Liverpool were called up and the young man in Belfast were not, it would be resented in this country just as much as it would be resented in Ulster.
I feel, as my countrymen feel in Ulster, that to have left us out of this Bill is a slur on our loyalty and affection for this country. Those hon. Members who sit for English constituencies—I have to refer to English constituencies, in view of the fact that England is the only place for the omission of which an Amendment has not been put down—would feel the resentment that I feel, no matter what their views are on the Bill, if their constituencies were to be left out. We in Ulster feel this very strongly. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour may say that if he had omitted Scotland and Wales, he might have obtained some popularity by including Ulster. 1t may well be, although I do not want to introduce anything which is too controversial in this matter—and here, at least, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone will agree with me—that if the right hon. Gentleman had included Ulster and left out Scotland and Wales, he would have more than counter-balanced the omission, in the view of Ulstermen.
We are, of course, divided in this Committee as to the merits and demerits of


compulsory service as opposed to the voluntary system, but them is one thing on which we must agree, and that is that we cannot have two systems side by side. In Canada during the last war they tried both systems. There was compulsory service in the whole of Canada, but one could volunteer to go overseas. Compulsory service was for defence, and one could also volunteer for "going active." That attempt to combine the two systems raised the greatest resentment among all sections of the community. We in Ulster haw had experience of that, as a result of the last war. There are numerous instances that I could give—I will only give one—of the anomalies which arise in a place where there is a voluntary system, which is alongside a place where there is compulsory service. A young man, a constituent of mine, volunteered and went to thy war. When he came back, he wanted to go into the linen trade. He was turned down because he had no previous experience. When he applied to the Board of Trade, they said it did not matter because all young men of his age would be turned down, they had all been to the war and, therefore, he would not he in a worse position. But, of course, because he lived in Belfast he could point to another man of the same age who had remained behind, who had been able to enter this trade and was in a prosperous position simply because he had been there.
Those are the things that raise the greatest possible resentment. We may also find Ulstermen working over here who see their friends being conscripted, many of whom will feel that they themselves must also join the Regular Army. If they do they will find themselves in a position where they have to serve for nine years with the Colours and three years with the Reserve. If the Minister is not going to accept this Amendment, I hope he will consider this point, so that those Ulstermen who volunteer will be able to serve for the same period as the men who are called up over here. There might be many Ulstermen who feel it their duty to volunteer but who, at present, will find they have to serve a long period.
This is a matter upon which I feel strongly. I have lived for some time in this country, and I have met nothing but affection and kindness. However, my first loyalty is to my own countrymen, and I resent, as countless others resent, the slur that has been cast upon us and

the breach that has been made, as I feel it will be made, in the ties of affection which bind us. But I am convinced that those ties will continue, no matter what people may think, or however misguided we may think the Englishman is in his taste in Governments.

Mr. Bing: I think it was a little unfortunate that the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) should have opened this Debate by suggesting that hon. Members on this side of the Committee were interested only in casting a slur on Ulster. I do not think that is so at all. Perhaps the only difference between the hon. Baronet and myself is that I am as interested in seeing the people in Ireland enjoy the same liberties as those in this part of our islands, as in imposing their duties on them.
Let me deal very shortly with what I think is the real issue before the Committee, an issue perhaps which was not considered even in 1939, when the matter was first discussed. I hope hon. and right hon. Members opposite will appreciate the difficulty we are in. The difficulty is that they are inviting this Committee to conscript into the British Army people, of whom one out of three, according to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, is so disloyal that he should not even be employed by a private employer in a private capacity. The hon. Baronet will see the difficulty we are in. Either the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is wrong, in which case the hon. Baronet should have said so early in his speech and we could have looked very sympathetically on this matter; or else the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is right, in which case it would be quite improper, I think, for us to impose conscription on a body of people, one in every three of whom is disloyal.
I think it is worth while examining for a moment the arguments of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland on which he bases this argument of disloyalty, to see whether or not we can accept them in this Committee, because the decision of the Committee will naturally depend upon whether we are guided by the hon. Baronet in this matter or whether we are guided by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. The test which the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland applies to loyalty is a very simple one. He looks at a man's religion, and if he is of one religious


persuasion the Prime Minister pronounces him loyal, and if he is of another religious persuasion the Prime Minister pronounces him disloyal.

Mr. E. P. Smith: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in Order in discussing, in great detail, what has been said by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?

The Temporary Chairman: I should prefer the Debate to be much narrower. It has grown much too wide. However, I do not intend to stop the hon. Member.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry to have to go into this, but it is a point of some moment, because if the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is right we on this side of the Committee would be very wrong to enforce conscription in those circumstances. I should therefore refer to what he actually said so that shall not be thought to be doing him an injustice. Speaking of private employers in the racy idiom he so often employs, he said that, so far as Catholics were concerned, his view was that no one should have one about his place. Subsequently, speaking in the constituency of the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry, he said;
When I made that declaration last Twelfth "—

Hon. Members: When?

Mr. Bing: I am very sorry, the 12th July celebrates the Battle of the Boyne. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to complete the quotation. [HON. MEMBERS: "What year?"] It will come. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should realise that in one particular we are in some difficulty about obtaining information regarding Northern Ireland. It is not one of the courtesies which the Parliament of Northern Ireland extends to this House to send them with any promptitude an account of its proceedings. It was 22 years before they sent to the Library of this House a copy of their regulations under their Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment under. discussion.

Mr. Bing: I am very sorry, Sir Charles, but I was dealing with the matter of dates.

The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]— in 1934—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He said it in 1934, but it has been supported ever since. Speaking in the hon. Baronet's constituency the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said;
When I made that declaration last Twelfth I did so after careful consideration. What I said was justified. I recommend people not to employ Catholics who are 99 per cent. disloyal.
If that is no longer so, I hope that it will not be only on this side of the Committee that it is denounced, and I trust that somebody on the other side—one of the hon. Members who represents Northern Ireland—will have the courage to get up and say that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is wrong. We must have it clear one way or the other. Either he is wrong, in which case someone should get up and say so, or he is right and this Amendment should not be forced to a Division. I think it is only fair when dealing with this point to say for my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee that no question of religious persuasion enters into our view as to the loyalty or otherwise of the people of Northern Ireland.
Whether or not we have conscription in Northern Ireland is not really a question of sentiment or of reward for Northern Ireland for the services its people have rendered. We can give them that reward in another way by seeing that they enjoy the same liberties as we do here. That, however, is another matter. This is a practical question and what we want to consider is whether conscription is actually practicable under the conditions at present existing in Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate in a way that this Debate has come before the Debate on the Northern Ireland Bill. As I understand the case from such documents as have come over here, the case which the Northern Ireland Members will put up is that it is necessary for them to have powers to imprison people indefinitely without trial of any kind as a permanent part of their Constitution. I see that you are about to rise, Sir Charles. Before you do so, may I present this argument to you? What I am arguing is that if it is in fact the case that the country is in such a desperate state that such regulations are necessary, then it is not a fit country in which to enforce conscription.
9.0 p.m.
If it is necessary to have regulations enabling the imprisoning indefinitely of anyone without trial—[Interruption.] Yes, it is quite true there is an appeal tribunal, but I will not deal with that point, except to remark that two members of it were the chairman and secretary of the late Home Secretary's Divisional Conservative Party—if it is necessary for the Home Secretary to have power to allow no newspapers to appear; if habeas corpus must be suspended; if all these things are justified—and it would be improper to argue that they are not at the moment—then clearly it would be improper for us to interfere in such a difficult situation and impose from outside, conscription. If, on the other hand, they are not justified, then the course of the hon. Baronet and of the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) is clear. They should not waste their eloquence in this House, but should go back and convert their own Government to repeal these regulations, restore habeas corpus and even go so far as to return to the people of Northern Ireland their votes in the local elections.
If from this Debate anything of value is to emerge, I think it is this: We should have a definite repudiation of that sectarian remark, which to my mind has clone more harm to Imperial defence than ever good could be created if we recruited every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. If hon. Members opposite wish to perform a real service for Imperial defence, they should rise in their places and say that they are sorry their Prime Minister ever said such a thing, that it is entirely unjustified, and that it has no basis whatever in fact.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: I would suggest that the speech to which we have just listened was the speech which the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) intended to deliver whenever the Northern Ireland Bill came before this House. I understand that the hon. Member was born in Ulster.

Mr. McKinlay: No surrender.

Sir W. Allen: I was saying that the hon. Member was born in Ulster. We have a saying in Ulster:

It is a dirty bird that fouls its own nest.
The hon. Member thought fit to bring in the question of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. That is a great pity. No one on this side has referred to it. For over 50 years I was connected with the linen business. I am an Orangeman, and am proud of it. My workers knew what I was, and a large percentage were Roman Catholics. When the question of religion is brought in, it has a very disturbing element both for this House, and, I believe, for the people of Ulster. We thought we were getting away from these old prejudices. I can well understand the senior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Cunningham), and the junior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey), taking up their present position. That is their job; that is their duty. But if Northern Ireland was included by this Committee tonight within the provisions of this Bill it would cause great misfortune to the constituents of those hon. Members, because it would be impossible to see their heels for dust as they flew over the border. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) appealed for unanimity in Ireland, so that there might be peace and prosperity. Nobody knows better than he what a different position Mr. de Valera would have occupied today if he had said to the British Forces during the war, "There are the ports you want."

Mr. Mulvey: He would have been deceived again.

Sir W. Allen: The old question of Northern and Southern Ireland has been introduced again today. We in Northern Ireland wish to be considered as part and parcel of this great Empire of the British Commonwealth, and it is because of that that we wish to undertake our responsibilities and our duties in the same way as Yorkshire, Lancashire, or other parts of England wish to undertake theirs. The young man on one side of the desk looks at the man on the other side, and says to himself, "I will go as a volunteer if you volunteer." But he also says to himself," I shall not volunteer if you are going to sit at home and take my job." It is a difficult question, but whatever difficulties there are in it, we in Ulster wish to participate in everything that is for the advancement of the British Empire. To say that we are not in earnest about this is not


telling the truth. We are. We wish to be with Britain in peace, in war, in prosperity, and in every other position in which she finds herself.

Mr. Mulvey: The hon. and gallant Member is anxious to include part of Ireland, but to exclude the other part.

Sir W. Allen: The ex-Prime Minister said that the Cabinet had not felt it worth while to trouble about conscription in Northern Ireland. Many times we have wondered what is at the bottom of it; what was the trouble? Was it the same trouble that Mr. Bonar Law experienced in 1920, when he was afraid of disturbance? Was that part of the trouble today to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Was it the trouble which might have been created by the leaders of the Southern Ireland Parliament? Was that the reason? We do not know. We can only guess. But what we do know is, that we were prepared at that time to accept whatever was necessary for the prosecution of the war to a successful issue. And that is the stand which we take today. It is not this Amendment which has created this position; it is the position which the Government have taken up. It is not we who are causing any dissatisfaction in this House, or in the country. It is the position which the Government have taken up in declaring that Ulster shall be excluded. We take this opportunity of reminding the Committee and the British people again that, so far as we are concerned, we are one now, and we are one for ever, with the British Empire.

Mr. Isaacs: We have listened, in the discussion on this Amendment, to echoes of the past, and we have heard the voice of Ireland—unfortunately not in much closer agreement now than in the days which made history in this House, or at any rate in the House of Commons when it met in another Chamber. It is not my purpose in any way to traverse the criticisms of one party against another, or one section against another section. We, of course, realise the great part which Northern Ireland played in the war effort. It was my great privilege to visit Northern Ireland during the war and after the bombing, and I saw what they had undergone there, how they had rallied, and the great service they had rendered. But we are now faced with the need to look at

the situation as a whole, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) brought the matter up to the position from which I want to deal with it when he spoke this afternoon, and when he stated, that so far as he was concerned, his views on the matter were the same as in May, 1939, and September, 1939, when the Bills for national service were introduced. Whether the right hon. Gentleman was speaking for his party I do not know; he did not make that very clear.
In May, 1939, when the first Bill was introduced, the draft included Northern Ireland; but the Government of that day decided, for reasons which need not be brought out now, but which were clear to that Government—a Government very friendly to Northern Ireland—that it would be wise in the circumstances that Northern Ireland should be taken out. It was not an omission on that occasion, but a deliberate action based on the circumstances.

Sir R. Ross: And opposed by all Northern Ireland Members.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Isaacs: That may be, just as it is opposed by Northern Ireland Members today. In the September, another Bill was introduced, and I was in the House at that time. From this Bill, Northern Ireland again was excluded. The hon. and gallant Member said that it was not Ulster which had brought this matter before the Committee this evening, but that it was the action of the Government in excluding Northern Ireland from the Bill. We are sometimes charged with inconsistency, and sometimes with acting contrary to the line taken by a previous Government. But in this instance, what we have done is to be consistent with the attitude of the Conservative Government before the War, and the Coalition Government during the War, in excluding Northern Ireland from this Bill.
It was not a novel action on our part but an action which in the circumstances we felt was justified I should like to remind the House that the Prime Minister, in the Debate on the Address on 12th November last, made reference to this position and made perfectly clear what the Government's attitude would be on this question when the Bill came before the House. Let me quote what he said on that occasion:


There is the question of Northern Ireland. While the Government are fully conscious of a desire of the majority of people in Northern Ireland to take their full share of the burden of military service as partners of the United Kingdom they have come to the conclusion after weighing all the considerations that the best plan will he to follow the scheme adopted in the National Service Acts, and apply the new legislation to Great Britain only."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430 c. 41.]
Thus it was known at that time what attitude the Government proposed to take. Not much has been said on the principle of the question involved, but we have travelled over all sorts of side issues and over those old grievances which I think are nursed with some devotion, which they are not anxious to lose, and which do come up from time to time. I want to make one further point clear—that the responsibility for the decision rests entirely on the United Kingdom Government as distinct from the Northern Ireland Government; the United Kingdom Ministers only are in a position to weigh the advantages or the disadvantages of the inclusion or the exclusion of Northern Ireland. Weighing up all these considerations, it was felt it would be better not to apply compulsory service to Northern Ireland. That is the Government's view, and whilst I have been very brief in making this reply, I have stuck to that main fact and have avoided—as I hope there will not be any reference in any later speeches if any should be made—the passing backwards and forwards of these ancient historical quarrels, for I would rather see these things fade away without recrimination.

Mr. Walkden: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down could he give us the reasons for the precedent to which he referred and for maintaining it? What are those reasons which led up to it; and are those reasons the same now?

Mr. Isaacs: If my hon. Friend had listened very carefully to the things which have been said, backwards and forwards in this House, he would have discovered them.

Mr. Hogg: I sincerely apologise to the Committee for detaining it any further, but I do not want to give a silent vote on this issue. When the Committee have heard what I have to say I hope, whether hon. Members agree with me or not, they will recognise that I have a reason for intervening in this Debate. It was not simply that I

was challenged on a previous Amendment to justify the exclusion of Northern Ireland from this Bill; it is something much deeper than that. My family has its origins in Northern Ireland. I regard myself as an Ulsterman, although some generations have separated my family from that Province. I am proud of this association and because I propose to vote for the Government on this Amendment, I want to say exactly why I do so. I dissociate myself in the plainest and most emphatic terms from what has been said by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). I am proud of my Ulster association. I feel the warmest and deepest loyalty and gratitude to that part of the United Kingdom. I recognise the deep sincerity of its people; its great loyalty to our country and the steadfastness of which both sides, including that represented by the hon. Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh (Mr. Mulvey), despite their tragic differences, adhere to their loyalties as each understands them.
If it were only a matter of sentiment or sympathy, that would, of course, bring me into the Lobby with those who propose this Amendment, but I do not propose to go there. I share with them the same political loyalty. In my childhood I regarded the partition of Ireland and its division from this Kingdom, as a great and sad misfortune for both countries. I regard the question of the defence of these British Isles as one question. As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. J. E Haire) said, it is a question in which we cannot be dissociated one part from another. We stand or fall in our liberties together. If this question were to be decided on logic, that consideration would bring me into the same Lobby as my hon. Friends, but we must be realistic in this matter. We have to consider this question from the point of view of the advantage to the United Kingdom, both from the military and political aspects.
I am persuaded that if the Amendment were carried, the military advantage would be against us and the military problems to which the imposition of conscription upon Northern Ireland would give rise would be greater than those which it would solve. I am persuaded that the political advantages lie in that direction and that our position in the world would not be strengthened if the Amendment were carried. Therefore, I propose to vote against the Amendment.


Because I believe in the ultimate unity of the peoples of these islands, because I am and always have been a Unionist, because I want to see the rifts healed and the divisions ultimately brought to an end and because I know that that will not happen in my time but hope that one day it will be so, I want this Committee to forbear to pass the Amendment. I ask it to continue to respect the convictions of those people, however misguided, from whom we are deeply divided in tradition. For those reasons I shall vote against the Amendment and ask other hon. Members to do likewise.

Mr. Hollis: I oppose the Amendment for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). If it were carried it would lead to an increase in sectarian bitterness. I shall not argue who is responsible but in point of fact it will be so. When we were at school we used to read in our books that there had been a time when there was such a thing as political persecution, but we felt that it had certainly been banished from our lives. The saddest experience of our lives has been to realise that sectarian bitterness has come back to the world on a scale gigantically greater than ever before known in human history. Thank God we have not seen much of this bitterness in these islands. Whereas beastliness and intolerance have been on the increase in other parts of the world, kindliness, decency and toleration have, on the whole, been on the increase in these islands. I beseech hon. Members in every quarter of the Committee to think very carefully before they pass any vote or make use of any words which might in any way, however unintentional, introduce into these islands that horrible spirit of sectarianism.

Amendment negatived.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Clement Davies.

Mr. Gage: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. When you put the Question, I said "Aye."

The Temporary Chairman: After I had declared that the "Noes" had it, there was an hon. Member who shouted "Aye."

Mr. Gage: I think I shouted "Aye" before.

The Temporary Chairman: I did not hear the hon. Member.

Sir R. Ross: Further to the point of Order, Sir Charles. My hon. Friend was posted to shout "Aye" and he shouted "Aye."

The Temporary Chairman: He did not shout loud enough for me to hear him. Mr. Clement Davies.

Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to move, in page I, line II, after "Britain," to insert:
other than in Wales or Monmouthshire.
This Amendment is to exclude Wales and Monmouthshire from the operation of the Bill.

Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. Are we to understand that the Committee is now to discuss the Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and the following Amendment, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), which is similar?

The Temporary Chairman: I think the same discussion could cover both Amendments.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Davies: The object of both Amendments is the same, namely, to exclude Wales and Monmouthshire from the operation of the Measure. I believe that our attitude is different from that adopted by hon. Members who moved and supported the last Amendment in that there is no inferiority complex in Wales. We are proud of the fact that we have defended our own country throughout all the centuries, and maintained our independence, our traditions, our language, and our national standpoint. So that this is not a question, as seems to have been assumed in some of the prior Debates in this Committee, that has something to do with mere terrain. It goes far deeper than that. It is a question of the outlook, the mode of life, and the attitude of the people themselves. So far as the people of Wales are concerned, I have not the slightest doubt that there is an overwhelming majority against the application of this Bill, certainly to Wales. I make no bones about it at all. They are against conscription as a whole but they are certainly against its application to their own country.
We are in this position, that we have made, throughout the years, a great contribution to the wealth and the economic basis of these islands. It is, indeed, a proud boast throughout the Principality that they have done more to add to the wealth of the British Isles than any other part of these islands. They have always taken up the attitude that there must be defence, and that they do not like to be conscripts. In the 1914-18 war. when we had the voluntary system from 4th August, 1914, until some time in 1916, when the defence of the whole of this country was against the might of the Kaiser and the whole of Germany, Wales, compared with England, compared with Scotland, compared with Ireland, had a far higher ratio of volunteers. That was a proud position. So great were the numbers of volunteers from Wales that, instead of having to have to add to the numbers that were coming, we had to put a stop to the numbers coming from Wales, certainly from the mines. Men had to be fetched back from the front line trenches in France. That was a position which was never occupied by England or Scotland. So we are proud of the fact that we have the voluntary system.
It is a well-known fact that, in religion, we are, in the main, Nonconformists. We do not like conformity. We will volunteer; and once we have given our word, and once we have been persuaded that a cause is just and that a cause is right, we shall certainly be there in its support at all times. But we will not be driven or dragooned. There was a period when, apparently, it was the mode in England, certainly in the early Victorian period, to boast of everything German. It was a real cult. Writers of that time proudly emphasised the Teutonic side. For my part, I believe that much of the real brilliance of this country has come from its Celtic elements, which dislike regimentation but prefer to depend upon individuality and initiative.
The Minister of Labour did not go into the reasons why he, on behalf of the Government, was refusing to bring Northern Ireland into this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman contented himself by saying that various arguments had been thrown backwards and forwards across the Committee. What was the real reason why the Government could not bring in

Northern Ireland? It was the difficulty of enforcing this Bill, and I warn this Government now that there will be those same difficulties of enforcement as far as Wales is concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If we run a voluntary system, they will be there before any of those on the other side of the Committee will be there. They are the first people to treasure liberty and to fight to maintain their liberty. There is not one of us who has not received, not merely from individuals, but from councils and every kind of body in Wales, protests against the application of this Conscription Bill to their country at this time, and it is for these reasons that, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, I beg to move this Amendment.

Professor Gruffydd: Our object in putting forward this Amendment is not to get more liberal terms for Wales as against England. I should like to tell the Committee the reason why conscription should not be applied to Wales. The reason is that it would be quite impossible to work it. If conscription is applied to Wales, the Government will find that they will have there an impasse, and I do not want to add to the administrative difficulties of the Government further difficulties arising from conscription.
What is the truth of this matter? All the denominations of Wales, except the Church in Wales, have passed resolutions against conscription. That does not mean merely the sessions, the annual meetings, and the big gatherings of the conferences, but also the individual churches. In one part of Caernarvonshire, every single church passed a resolution, and every member of those churches voted for it. When conscription comes, what are the Government going to do? Are they going to send every young man in the county of Caernarvonshire to prison? They are totalitarian in their objection to conscription. They will not wait until the medical examinations are over to see whether they are unfit or not; they will refuse to have the medical examinations. There is no remedy in the Bill for that. I do not think it would be unreasonable to say that the whole country should be exempted from this Bill.
Are the Government prepared to give wholesale exemptions to the whole of Wales, except in the mining areas where


they are already exempted, or are they ready to send the whole lot to prison? I hope that the Government will take me seriously. I make a suggestion to the Government, which I do not think will be very palatable to them. If they do not believe what I and my right hon. and learned Friend have told them, I suggest that they should consult some Members of the Government and some hon. Members who have already put their names on the back of this Bill, as to their views on conscientious objection in Wales. I have no doubt that those hon. Members would be able to give the Government some facts. It seems to me to be one of the most discreditable things in the history of my little country that some of my countrymen, who were conscientious objectors in the first world war, are now willing to send their fellow-countrymen into the Army.
The history of Wales is very different from that of this country. The peace movement in Wales had the backing of the whole nation in the nineteenth century. Not only did it have the backing of the whole Welsh nation, but the chairman of the peace movement in Britain was a Welshman. He was a Member of this House and represented Merthyr Tydfil. Rightly or wrongly, Wales has made objection to compulsory service in the Army part of its religion. I do not think it is going too far to say that, because the objection to this Bill comes first from the ministers of the Church. If this Bill is applied to Wales, it will mean the religious persecution of the whole country.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Mr. Gallacher.

Mr. Price-White (Carnarvon Boroughs): On a point of Order. Surely, this Amendment is directed solely to the affairs of Wales?

Mr. Mack: My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is an Internationalist.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is out of Order to challenge the Ruling of the Chair. Mr. Gallacher.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I am still a Celt, though I come from the North. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr.

C. Davies) and his hon. Friends are anxious to exclude Wales from the provisions of this Bill. They say they are against conscription of the country as a whole, and they tell us that if conscription is applied to Wales it will not work. Very well, that will finish it for the whole country. When I was on my way down to the South to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, Providence intervened and I did not get here. I abstained from voting on the Scottish and Irish Amendments, and I will abstain from voting on this Amendment because it is quite impracticable. Nobody can seriously contemplate conscription for Scotland and England, while not applying conscription to Wales. The question of defence is national and covers the whole the country. There can only be one defence plan for Britain as a whole. That applies equally to Northern Ireland. Those who voted to keep Scotland in, should also in logic vote to keep Northern Ireland out. For there cannot be one 'defence system for the six counties and another for the 26 counties.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that we have passed the question relating to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gallacher: All I want to do is to express my feelings on this question, and to say that this Amendment is impracticable. We must face the necessity for one method of defence for the whole of the country. If I have an opportunity later, I may vote against the Bill, but I certainly would not be prepared to vote for this Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I wish to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I regard this Amendment as the most important proposal in relation to Wales that has ever come before this Committee. [Laughter.] Perhaps hon. Members would cease laughing if they tried to understand a little about the country of which I speak. It has always been the attitude of the party above the Gangway to laugh at the problems of Wales. It is because they laughed during 20 years of power that Wales is in its present dreadful and neglected condition. My first argument is, that we regard conscription in time of peace as an unmitigated evil, as an unjustifiable invasion of personal


liberty, and as a thwarting influence in the careers of young men, especially when the school-leaving age has been raised to 13. The first duty of those who serve Wales is to strive all we can to exclude Wales from this Bill. We do it in no spirit of enmity, jealousy or hostility, though we have to bear ourselves with some restraint when we listen to that ignorant laughter which comes from above the Gangway. We want to keep this total evil from our country. However, we feel no enmity, and we do not wish to shirk responsibility for the defence of these Islands as volunteers.
We take this step with greater confidence because public opinion and the actions of the representatives of Wales show, without any doubt at all, that Wales is overwhelmingly against this Measure. Let us take, first of all, the actions of hon. Members of this Committee who represent Wales. On the Second Reading, 20 of the 36 Members for Wales voted against this Bill. To be more accurate, there were 19 and one Teller. Apart from the Welsh Members of the Government—and I shall come to them in detail—only seven Welsh Members voted for the Bill. There we have 20 hon. Members against conscription and seven for it. I cannot believe that the hearts of the Welsh Members of the Government are in this Bill. Neither their past actions nor their past words would lead us to think for a moment that they have now come to favour throwing young men into the Army when they have passed that age themselves. I can pray in aid no better words than those used by the present Minister of Health during the Second Reading of the Military Training Act on 4th May, 1939. The Minister of Health, as he is now, then a private member of the Labour Party, used these words:
Conscription has been introduced … We have lost, and Hitler has won. He has deprived us of a very important English institution—voluntary service." [OFFICE REPORT, 4th May, 1939; Vol. 346, C. 2136.]
I cannot believe that the Minister of Health has so changed his opinions that he is now in favour of that principle which he described in such emphatic terms on 4th May, 1939.
I do not adduce, in support of the exclusion of Wales, the fact that the treatment of Wales by the War Office gives us so little ground for confidence in the

attitude of the War Office towards Wales. Yet those would be substantial arguments for our saying: "We will not co-operate with you if you are so shameful in your attitude towards our land, if you break up our Welsh regiments and our Welsh divisions in the way you are doing, and if you neglect to listen to complaints until we have literally forced them on you by the overwhelming feeling of the nation." Those, in themselves, would be strong grounds. But let it not be thought that we are putting this Amendment forward in any sense of grievance. We are putting it forward strictly on the merits of the case. The representatives of the nation are overwhelmingly against it. Indeed, not only its representatives. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) referred to the religious bodies. Over 700 bodies and organisations—churches, young farmers' clubs, leagues of youth, all manner of good sections of the nation in the North and in the South, because remember that 13 of the hon. Members who voted against the Bill come from South Wales; this is not merely an aspiration of the Members from North Wales—

Mr. George Thomas: Is it not a fact that those 700 organisations voted against conscription but not for the exclusion of Wales from the Bill?

Mr. Roberts: I am very glad the hon. Member has put that to me. Over 600 of them actually used the words that they considered conscription an injustice to Wales.

Mr. Thomas: Six hundred what?

Mr. Roberts: Of these organisations.

Mr. Edward Evans: Were there, any Conservative clubs among those organisations?

Mr. G. Thomas: All the Conservatives are in 'North Wales.

Mr. Roberts: May I answer the hon. Member myself? I want to treat his question as a serious one. I did not know such clubs existed to pass such resolutions. Over 700 bodies have voted against conscription. Even apart from the fact that 600 of them specifically mentioned the injustice done to Wales, logically, if an hon. Member from Wales believes conscription is bad, it is his duty to vote against its introduction in


Wales. With every respect to Northern Ireland and Scotland, we are a distinct nation in a greater and clearer sense than any other section of this Committee, not only in language but in the way of life in Wales as well. We are determined that that way of life, now struggling for its existence, shall live. We fear that it may be threatened if these young men are taken year by year and put into the British Forces. We have little confidence that they would be kept with their Welsh comrades from Wales.
I make this appeal, though I have little confidence that the Government Front Bench will listen to it. I fancy they will treat it in the same manner as they treated a strong request from all the Welsh Members of Parliament for a Secretary of State. I wish they would listen to this plea. I wish they would not regard—and I am not sure that they do not—the compelling of young men to join the Army as the only way of dealing with unemployment in Wales, which, at 12 per cent., is now twice as high in percentage as in any other region of the country.

Mr. Callaghan: That is a disgraceful thing to say, and the hon. Member ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Roberts: It is true.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the hon. Member aware that there are 39,000 more people working in Wales today than there were in 1939?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Roberts: There are more people working everywhere. What I want to do is to prevent them wasting their lives in this military machine, instead of devoting their time to industry. Let the Government show their seriousness by listening to this reasonable plea. Let them show that they recognise the distinct nationality of the Welsh people. I warn them that if they acquiesce in the exclusion of Northern Ireland, while compelling Wales to come in, it will be considered disgraceful, and will undoubtedly result in piling up perils in the administration of this Bill. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), in his most conservative and orthodox approach to this problem, asked whether we could envisage a situation in which Scotland and England were con-

scripted, while Wales was not. Of course, we can envisage such a situation. The defence of these islands is a matter of strategy, equipment and planning, and Wales will not be short whenever the country is in danger. In two great wars she has paid her quota in full, and in the first war she gave one of her sons to be one of the greatest war Ministers in history. I ask the Government to listen to the plea, because the vast majority of Welshmen are determined to see that their way of life is cherished, protected and preserved.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) directed most of his arguments towards two points, first, that conscription was wrong, and, secondly, that the treatment of Welsh regiments had been unwise and unfair. As far as the second point goes, there is a great deal in what he has said. I think that Welsh sentiment has not, by any means, been properly considered in this matter. As far as the question of conscription is concerned, that, of course, is not the issue of this Amendment. I have great respect for those who are against conscription. I have still greater respect for those who are absolutely sincere conscientious objectors, who are prepared to go to the end, to prison, or to be shot, if necessary, for their faith. These people I shall always respect, and I shall always believe in their sincerity. I fully agree with the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) that anyone who has taken up that position when he is young, but has given it up when older, deserves the censure of this Committee. The issue here is not that of conscription. I understand the reasons against it, although I am not opposed to it. The Minister of Labour, speaking earlier, gave a much too rosy picture of conscription and what those who are about to enter into it feel. I agree that it may do certain people good, but to put it across as a sort of Socialist grand tour does not really correspond to the facts. When I was 18 years of age, if someone had said to me, "Look here, we are going to conscript you, will you vote for it or against it?" I should most certainly have voted against it.
Few people like to go into these things if they can avoid it. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) pointed out that the record of


volunteering in Wales had been very good indeed, and that is true. But both he and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) said that in spite of that fact it would be quite impossible to enforce the provisions of this Bill in Wales. It is a little difficult to reconcile those two things. What is happening now? We have conscription in peacetime. Although there is a certain amount of trouble, there is no wholesale revolt such as we have been threatened with, and which, I think, would be a shameful thing if it occurred. The hon. Member for Merioneth said that the people of Wales would volunteer whenever Britain was in danger. But that is not very much good, because what you have to do is to prevent your country from getting into danger. If you have no Forces until that time comes it is not much good. It has been proved that you will never get the required volunteers unless you have three million or more unemployed.

Mr. Byers: How does the hon. Member explain that, in view of the fact that the voluntary element in the Army from 1949 onwards will be greater than it was in peacetime, in 1939, when there were 234,000 volunteers, and the plan now is for 250,000 volunteers?

Mr. Birch: I do not know how the hon. Member knows what the number of volunteers in 1949 will be. All I am saying is that it is extremely improbable that the number of men required for the Army can be raised by voluntary means.
Given the fact that the principle of conscription has been decided by this House and supported by all parties—by the Government, by the Tory Party, and by those members of the Liberal Party who are in the majority in that party, but who are not in this House—to suggest that Wales should contract out is something which is not right. Supposing you ask people in a county, or a country, whether they want to pay Income Tax and whether they are prepared to vote for it. I think they would vote against it. I agree that conscription is perhaps the most odious form of taxation, that it is paid at the cost of upsetting families, personal suffering, discomfort, and so on. But if it has been decided by the House, and by all political parties, that that tax must be paid I think it is wrong that any part of the country,

particularly a part which prides itself on the loyalty of its subjects to His Majesty the King, should wish to exclude itself from an obligation which all their fellow countrymen have to bear.

Mr. Mainwaring: I am vastly interested in this subject, and my interest has been stimulated by the speech of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts). In my boyhood, in Wales, one of the peculiar cultural activities in the villages was the holding of cyrddau diwylliadol—meetings by chapel associations, at which subjects were periodically chosen for discussion. The address we have heard from the hon. Member for Merioneth reminds me of one of those meetings. It did not matter whether you were for or against the subject, but there you were on your feet to speak for a given number of minutes. There might be no conviction in the matter of the speech, but you had to talk as best you could on the particular topic. The matter of conscription tonight has been taken very lightly indeed. In these proposals to exclude Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, the Isle of Wight, the Isle of Man, Lundy Island, or any other island, there is no attempt to get down to the fundamental conditions underlying this question. There is no man or woman in this Committee who desires war. We would all unanimously decide tonight that we have not the slightest desire to declare war, to wage war, or to enter into conflict with any other nation. But we do not decide the matter for other nations. That is the unfortunate thing about it. Therefore, fundamentally we are coming back to the proposition that an occasion may arise, or circumstances may develop, in which the defence of this country must be seen to.

Mr. McGovern: Like 1914.

Mr. Mainwaring: Yes, and like 1939. Do not forget that. It was the same on both occasions, and it may be the same again in 1940-something, or 1950-something. Who knows? The responsibility for that defence exists. Now, in the days of my youth, whenever the Conservative Party, or the Liberal Party, put up a proposition, that was an adequate reason for me and my comrades to resist it. But when the working classes of this country aspire to the position of governors of this country, and indeed when we have


reached that position, then there comes responsibility. I speak tonight for the workers of the Rhondda. Let there be no mistake that, whoever speaks for Wales tonight, I speak for Rhondda, East. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) can speak for the graduates and undergraduates of Wales, but I speak for the miners.

Mr. G. Thomas: May I ask the hon. Member, as I am also a constituent of the Rhondda, whether he is aware that 95 per cent. of his constituents are exempted by this Bill?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: I am perfectly aware of that; and I am also perfectly well aware of the reasons which induced that assembly to decide on those lines. It was that men are more afraid of going into the mines than into the Army. It is much more difficult to get men into the mines than into the Armed Forces. That is why my constituents are excluded. Indeed, some other course might have been decided upon.
The Government might have decided to apply conscription without any distinction between the citizens of this land and then to bring in a Resolution excluding the miner. They did not do that, but excluded the miners first, because they were afraid the pits would not be manned. The same applied during the war years. The fact is that when the working classes of this country aspire and attain to the responsibility of government, they 'are responsible for the safety of this land. The possibility of war does not rest with the decision of the people of this country. It rests upon the decision of people outside. Should that moment arise in what position are we to fight? I have on several occasions, which I will not attempt to enumerate, protested against young lads from Rhondda being sent abroad, within a week of being called up and when they had no training.

Mr. G. Thomas: When?

Mr. Mainwaring: During the last war.

Mr. G. Thomas: Within a week of being called up?

Mr. Mainwaring: Yes,' within a week or two of being called up. They happened

to be unfortunate to be put into a unit destined for foreign service. We protested more than once against these untrained lads being sent abroad. For my part if I am going to beat the enemy, I want to be trained before I go.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether these men were sent off as combatant soldiers or not?

Mr. Mainwaring: They were for combatant service.

Mr. Carmichael: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the preparing of men to go abroad with the Armed Forces, or the question of the inclusion or exclusion of Wales from this Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: We are discussing whether or not Wales should be included in this Bill and I thought that the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) was using the instance which he gave as a matter of illustration.

Mr. Mainwaring: I am referring to the suggested exclusion of Wales and I ask this question. If circumstances arose in which this country was in danger, would anyone suggest that Welshmen would not be behind Englishmen, Scotsmen or Irishmen in defending their native land?

Mr. Emrys Roberts: No one suggested it.

Mr. Mainwaring: Or would you prefer Welshmen to be cowards beforehand? The only objection advanced against conscription for Wales is—

Mr. Roberts: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to suggest to you, Mr. Beaumont, that you would prefer Welshmen to be cowards beforehand or that I would prefer it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not gather that the hon. Member was referring to me or to the hon. Member. He used the word "you" in a general sense.

Mr. Mainwaring: You, Mr. Beaumont, may be more diplomatic about it than I was.

Mr. Roberts: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to infer by that remark that you are conveying insinuations against me?

The Deputy-Chairman: Obviously, it would not be in Order to do so, but frankly I did not understand that that was what the hon. Member meant.

Mr. Mainwaring: Let us get down to this point. The original argument advanced against conscription was that we in this country could rely upon a voluntary system in the event of the danger of war arising. The whole of the manpower and womenpower of this country becomes immediately involved in a modern war. The suggestion is that, face to face with that danger, we should leave it to volunteers. In other words, the suggestion is that I should get out of my responsibility by waiting and looking round for some-body to volunteer. [HON. MEMBERS; "You did."] No, I did not. I was not as bad as that. I went to the War Minister and asked him to put me into a Welsh regiment. All that I was allowed to do was to become a member of the Home Guard. Now that the clouds of war are happily dispersed for the time being it suits some people—I use these words deliberately—to advance the argument that we can rely upon volunteers. It means that the great mass of the manpower and womanpower of the country can safeguard themselves by waiting and looking for volunteers to come forward.

Mr. Bowen: ; Does the hon. Member suggest that conscription ought to apply to women?

Mr. Mainwaring: Of course.

Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member now speaking for his constituency; and is he in Order in entering into a Debate upon the general principles of conscription, instead of confining himself to the subject of Wales?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must of course relate his argument to the Amendment.

Mr. Mainwaring: I am speaking for Wales, Mr. Beaumont, and I object to anybody seeking to deprive Wales of its responsibility. If the necessity arose for men or women to defend this country, either in the fighting forces or in industry, I would stand for the conscription of both. In the recent war, did men or women stand back or withhold themselves, their efforts of their energies? Did the women withhold their energies?

They did not. If occasion arose tomorrow, the people of Wales would stand out and do the same. Do not let us have any hypocrisy about this matter. The suggestion that lies behind the Amendment is that, somehow, the manpower and womanpower of Wales would be forthcoming in voluntary fashion.
I ask the Committee seriously one question. Have we ever had a voluntary system? What recruited men into the Armed Forces in the past? Poverty, unemployment and the Conservative or Tory boss in industry. This country recruited its so-called voluntary Armed Forces by a process of social conscription. That was done everywhere in Wales as well as in England and Scotland. [Interruption.] What I am saying about Wales applies also to other parts of the United Kingdom. In addition to being a Welshman and a representative of Wales, I am a Socialist.

The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Mainwaring: Perhaps I should explain that I am a Welsh Socialist. I claim that it is my responsibility, as a Welsh Socialist, to see that the defence of Wales is as broadly based as my Socialist convictions for Wales. I speak for the Welsh people when I say that, in the defence of Wales, the responsibility should be as broadly based as Welsh democracy. I totally deny the argument that Wales should be in any way excluded from conscription. I do so on behalf of the people of Wales. I resent this hypocritical distinction and division in regard to the Welsh people. No decent man or woman in Wales would support the Amendment, and if anybody wants to challenge that statement, let him come to my division and do so. I have told the people in my division quite frankly where I stand, I have been honest with them, and I have told them that the Welsh working class has the responsibility for defending this country as a whole. The suggestion that the Welsh people shall be separated from their brothers and sisters in England, Scotland or any other part in time of common danger is not British; it is a narrow, hypocritical piece of nationalism, and, on behalf of Wales, I object to the proposition.
We have to decide a very serious issue. In time of danger to this country, upon


whom do we think the responsibility must rest for its defence? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wales."] In part, yes. When the danger does arise, the men and women of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland will rise collectively. They will not rise in separate sections one behind the other. When the danger came in the recent war, I doubt very much whether any one section of a united Britain was behind the others in its effort and readiness to defend the country. I object very much to the suggestion that Wales might be behind other parts if the hour of danger should come. It is time that we cut out this narrow nationalism that is being developed and fostered in Wales, Ireland and Scotland. If anything were required to raise the position to the height of absurdity, it would be for some English Members to move an Amendment to exclude England. To do that would be to bring out the absurdity of the position in the highest possible degree. On behalf of Wales, I object to the Amendment, and I hope the Committee will unite in rejecting it.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order, Major Milner. We were led to understand earlier, before you came back to the Chair, that this Amendment and the one immediately following would come up for discussion at the same time. That being so, may I suggest that hon. Gentlemen whose names are attached to the following Amendment should be consulted before we proceed any further with this Debate.

The Chairman: I gather that we are discussing the two Amendments together.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of the lion. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring). He laboured under the delusion that Wales wants to shirk its responsibilities in time of war. That is not at all the reason why Wales seeks to be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. One need only point to the record of the Welsh regiments during the last war—the Welsh Guards, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the South Wales Borderers, and the Welsh Regiment—;and Wales itself is proud of their achievements. Looking back upon the history of the last two wars for the liberation of mankind, I cannot imagine a situation

arising in this country in which Wales would seek to shirk its responsibilities in wars of that kind. That is not the issue at all. The issue is how can Wales best play its part, and how can England and Scotland best play its part. This is not conscription in wartime or in time of emergency; it is conscription in peacetime, and when there is no emergency. [An HON. MEMBER; "Nonsense."] Very well. How does the hon. Member know there is going to be an emergency in 1949? That is the period with which we are dealing.

Mr. Christopher Shaw cross: This is not peacetime in the normal sense.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: If the hon. Member is referring to today, I agree, but this Bill is not concerned with today. This Bill is concerned with 1949 and, therefore, it is based upon a hypothetical view of the situation. In peacetime the voluntary system has carried this country through, and Wales has played its part to a very high degree, as my hon. Friend pointed out. It furnished its own regiments during the war of 1914-1918, and played its part handsomely. Wales played its part in the second world war, and again played it handsomely. When the hon. Member for Rhondda pays a tribute to his own men, he is paying a just tribute, for, as my hon. Friend pointed out, they were brought back from the Forces to man the mines. Such is the strength of the voluntary principle, for Wales has played its part in the defence of the country, played its part in the defence of mankind.

Sir Arthur Salter: On a point of Order. It seems to me that these Amendments, or at least the speeches in support of them, constitute an abuse of the Privileges of Parliament. If hon. Members who support the Amendments are against national service, and believe we should rely upon voluntary service, they should oppose this Bill at the appropriate stages. On the other hand, they have accepted national service for this land, but think a particular part of this land should be exempted.

Mr. S. O. Davies: If the right hon. Member, who has just come into the Chamber, had been here earlier in the evening, he would agree that the Chair has treated the Committee very kindly indeed.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has spoken about opposition to the Bill at an earlier date. I opposed it on the Second Reading, and I oppose it now. I am speaking now on why Wales opposes it. Wales has the voluntary principle, and has worked the voluntary principle—[An HON. MEMBER: "No more than England."]

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is pointing out something with which we are not here concerned. This Debate has gone very wide. I must ask the hon. and learned Member to confine himself to the precise terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I am sorry, Major Milner, but I must point out that I am not reflecting on England. I am not reflecting on the part she has played, and I do not claim that Wales is in any better position. I do not say that. But the feeling of Wales has been expressed in a way in which it has not been expressed before this Debate.

Mr. Hollis: I feel that this Amendment raises a very difficult moral issue, and one in regard to which hon. Members face a dilemma. We have heard hon. Members representative of Wales, and we understand their reasons for supporting this Amendment. Their case has been put, and one hon. Member has pointed out that there is a religious objection to conscription among a very large number of the Welsh people. I do not think that we can quite dismiss it as parallel to the paying of Income Tax. There is this deep feeling which we must all accept and respect. That is a fact, and it is substantially the case for the Amendment. The argument on the other side is that conscription is, in any event, an onerous thing, that is only tolerable if it applies to everybody, and that the whole scheme will fall apart if there are exceptions made. If that was all there was to it, I should say that the second argument outweighed the former, and that if we are to have conscription, we cannot exempt Wales from that conscription. But the situation is not quite as simple as that, for this reason. A month ago, the Government did make an appeal to hon. Members to rise above all party and narrow considerations, and support a great national cause. That appeal was indeed answered, be-

cause, whatever else may be said, it cannot be said that narrow party views were taken.

The Chairman: That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Hollis: I apologise, Major Milner. I am simply pointing out that hon. Members from Wales certainly could not have been accused of taking a narrow party point of view. But the situation has changed, because the Government have surrendered to pressure—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: The simple question now is the Amendment before the Committee, but the hon. Member is referring to pressure, and that does not arise. The hon. Member must adhere to the Amendment, or resume his seat.

Mr. Hollis: I submit that the point is in Order, Major Milner. The point is that the Bill has been changed, on a substantial point, on a matter which could not be one of conscientious principle. The period of service is to be 12 instead of i8 months. I was going to submit that it is, in many ways, unfair to hon. Members from Wales, and, indeed, to hon. Members at large, that they should be asked to judge upon this point of whether Wales should be included or not, until they have first had an opportunity of hearing from the Minister of Defence or some other spokesman of the Government some word of what the present view of the Government is. We should know whether there is a coherent plan, which would justify us in overriding the Welsh claim and supporting the present policy of the Government or whether there is not such a coherent plan. I do not think we can take an intelligent decision until the Government have informed us of their standpoint.

Mr. George Thomas: There is no subject that more tempts a Welshman to be excited than a discussion on Wales; if there is anything that tempts him more, it is to hear other Welshmen claiming to speak for the Welsh— especially when he knows he does not, and that he speaks for a very rare type of Welshmen. In moving this Amendment tonight the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party laid great stress upon the different qualities of the Welsh people, as compared with the


people of the rest of the United Kingdom. Their temperament, he said, was different. Indeed, I rejoice to say, it is. Their character is different, and so we could not apply, felt the Leader of the Liberal Party, the same policy to Wales—to fight for what the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Roberts) called the British forces, with emphasis on the "British," as though they were English and Scottish, and not English, Welsh and Scottish.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I included the Welsh.

Mr. G. Thomas: I have voted against conscription in peace time. I shall always vote against conscription in peace time. But I object to conscription in peace time, and not only to conscription of Welshmen in peace time. This Amendment will have the effect of calling all the other people in the United Kingdom—with the exception of the people of Northern Ireland—to the colours for conscription, except Welshmen. I believe that the entire spirit of Wales is against conscription, and that the overwhelming majority of her people are against it. [Interruption.] In the small circle in which the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) moves, there may be some people who support his peculiar point of view. I am trying to interpret the spirit of Wales as I see it, unlike the hon. Member who lives in the same mining township as I. Though Wales is opposed to conscription in peace time, and though it is offensive to the very soul of her people, nevertheless, I am equally sure that there would not be the same majority—or anything like it—for trying to leave us out of the Bill.
10.45 p.m.
I have the honour to represent the Central Division of what we in the South call the capital city of Wales, but, in that city, my point of view is well known. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Roberts) is quite right; there were seven Government Welsh Back Benchers—and there were only seven—who voted for this Bill, and be it noted, they are all around Cardiff. While in that city, they know my point of view, they know that I am opposed to this thing in principle. I find it against the whole tradition of our movement in Wales. To keep in Order, I must say "in Wales." I think that, on this Celtic problem, while hon. Mem-

bers opposite were making their speeches, they aroused some sentiment in my heart, but they killed stone cold my feelings when I heard them unable to resist making cheap and mean party politics of this question. If they are basing their case on the great principle that Wales is a nation, different from the rest of these islands, if it is based on the religious principle, let them try to raise it above the gutter. It is more worthy of this House and certainly more worthy of all we have at heart.
I would suggest, further, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has made out a case, not for the exclusion of Wales, but for the exclusion of the Welsh, and I would remind him that the Welsh carry their temperament and carry their sentiments far from their borders, even into Birmingham, as the lion. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) will know. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made out a case by which wherever a Welshman can prove he is a Welshman, he ought to be excluded. Never would there be found so many Welshmen in these islands, which is, indeed, a tribute to how near this Bill is to the hearts of the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. In Wales, there is a small Nationalist Party. It has been pandered to in some of the speeches we have heard. There are people holding responsible positions in Wales who are frightened of the Welsh Nationalist sentiment, and, after the war, of course, it had a little fillip. It has now had a few injections, but, unless it gets some more injections of that sort, it will die a healthy death—[Laughter.] I must confess that I listened to the Irish Debate for an hour, and so I may be excused that mixture.
I believe that it is in the interests of the Welsh people that this miserable nationalism should be wiped out. I find myself—and quite by accident—at one with my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda. I agree with him that nationalism is something which spoils a noble people. There is no need for Welshmen to boast of their nation in this House. The reputation and the traditions of Wales are very well known. Wales has played its part in the communal life of the United Kingdom, and, believe me, it will continue to play its part in that life. All our sentiments and all our traditions make us fight this Bill on principle. We do not fight for privilege. We do not fight


to be put into a special position. We say that what is bad for us is bad for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Before I conclude I want to say one word in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda. I think that it was his Welsh blood and his Welsh fervour—for which I forgive him—which carried him away. I know of other Welsh Members who have been easily carried away like that. I believe that tomorrow, when Wales reads of this Debate, and when they hear of it, as they ought, on the B.B.C., they will judge what has been said in this House tonight on the high question of principle, and that they will desire, above all, that there shall be no ill feeling between the English and the Welsh. I see that the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) is present. She reminds me by her presence that Wales once gave a very pugnacious Member to this House, who served in a time of war, but who always fought against conscription in peacetime, because he, too, knew the spirit of our people. I would only ask— if it were not for the fact that you would rule me out of Order, Major Milner—not for privilege, but for the rejection of this Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The speech to which we have just listened is indeed one which gives one much greater confidence in one's fellow countrymen than do some of the speeches which we have heard tonight. I thought that both its tone and its manner were excellent, and I thought that the reproofs given to some of the things said in the earlier part of the Debate were indeed well merited. Tonight we have decided that conscription shall apply to Scotland, and that it shall apply to England. We have now reached the stage when we must decide whether it shall apply to Wales. The Amendment was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) who, incidentally, is a Privy Councillor. I thought that some of the remarks he made in moving the Amendment were an incitement to the people of Wales not to comply with the laws of this country. Interruption.] I had better repeat it. I thought that some of the remarks he made in the course of his speech, coming as they did from a Privy Councillor, were very unworthy of him, and were an incitement to the people of Wales not to comply with the laws of this country.

Mr. C. Davies: I did nothing of the kind. I warned the Government of the difficulties that would arise because of the intense feeling against conscription in Wales. I said that their willingness always to come forward voluntarily, best expressed the spirit of the Welsh.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It will be within the recollection of the Committee, that the tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was an indirect incitement not to submit to medical examination.

Mr. C. Davies: I never said that.

Mr. Ness Edwards: All right. I will recall what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. He warned the country 'that there would be difficulties of enforcement in Wales, and his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) asked whether or not we wanted to put the whole of the people of Wales into prison. Those were the general statements made during the course of the moving of the Amendment. However, I accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he now says that that was not his intention.

Professor Gruffydd: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) did not say it. I said it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Let me now deal with other points which have been raised in the Debate. In his opening remarks, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said this question had nothing to do with territory I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) referred to that point. If it has nothing to do with territory, it has to do with Welshmen, and I take it that under this Amendment, if it were carried, All the Englishmen in Wales would be called up, and all the Welshmen in England would be excused service. That would be the consequence of his Amendment—that Englishmen in Wales would be called up, but not Welshmen, and that Welshmen in England would be exempted, but not Englishmen. I take it that that, in itself, is a denial of the Amendment.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a number of other claims. He claimed that Wales was overwhelmingly against conscription. Assuming that one


concedes that point, surely, what he has now to prove is that Wales is against conscription applying to Wales whilst it applies to England and Scotland. I know that the complaint has been made for years that Wales has been treated worse than England. The demand has been made from all sides of the House, time after time, that Welsh people should have the same rights as English people. If they are to have the same rights, they must have the same obligations. There must be no differentiation either in rights or in obligations. In that sense, I think this Amendment is ill-conceived, and is preparing the way for worse or different treatment for the people of Wales compared with that of the people in Scotland and England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also claimed that the rate of volunteering in Wales in the first world war was higher than that of either England or Scotland. Does he remember why? Does he not remember that in the mines of South Wales in those days—

Mr. C. Davies: In 1914?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, in 1914. Does he not remember what the wages were, how even in 1914 the drift from the mines had commenced, and that these men who went into the Army were glad to see a bit of life, no matter how dangerous?

Mr. C. Davies: What happened was that after 4th August, 1914, although the wages had gone up, the men volunteered, and did so in a greater ratio than anywhere else.

The Chairman: This discussion is getting very far from the subject-matter of the Amendment.

11 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This point was made against the Government's case when the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved his Amendment, and I thought it right to answer it. The point is that wages did not rise until 1915, and then only very slightly. Of course, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman says the miners had to be brought back to Wales, what he forgets is that miners had to be brought back to every coalfield in the United Kingdom, and not only in Wales. It was not a phenomenon confined to Wales; it was something that was very general. I agree that Welshmen do not like conforming. I

appreciate that the Bournemouth breezes do not get as far as Scarborough, and the decision of his own party conference can be lightly put aside.
I thought the hon. Member tot the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) was not up to his usual standard. He is a great figure in Welsh literature, and is highly respected in Wales for his achievements and contributions. He says the people in Wales will not apply this conscription Bill if it is passed in this Committee. What he forgets is that in Wales today we are having no trouble at all with the application of the Military Service Act, which is now obligatory This is peacetime. If we are getting no trouble now, I anticipate that we shall not get any trouble in the future. It is not alleged that we dragoon men who have conscientious objections to performing military service. Surely, the precautions in the Bill protect those men who feel keenly upon the religious point which the hon. Member put forward, men who have deep religious and pacifist objections to military service? Those men are adequately safeguarded, and I have not heard a word of complaint from the hon. Member about the operation of that machinery in Wales at the present time.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Roberts) said—I thought in a most extravagant way—that this was the most important Amendment for Wales that has ever been before this Committee. He said he would give the reasons. I listened carefully, but I never discovered those reasons, from what the hon. Member had to say subsequently. When he says that Wales is anti-conscription, and when he tenders the evidence of so many bodies having voted against conscription, he, too, does not face the fact that Wales has not had an opportunity of saying, through any of its organisations, whether it wants preferential treatment for itself, or whether it shall be allowed to shirk its obligations. As against the evidence he has brought forward, I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade could say that almost every urban district council, every rural district council and every borough authority in Wales has asked that munition works shall be placed in their district. Munition works were started there during the war, and when they were being shut down, we had protests from the very authorities now quoted as being against conscription.


Wales cannot adopt the attitude that it will make the munitions for Englishmen to use but will not use them itself.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I challenge the statement that every urban district council has asked for munition factories. What they have asked for is the preservation of factories in peacetime, but not munitions.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The preservation of munition factories in Wales in peacetime is a matter that has been actively discussed time after time by the very party group to which the hon. Member belongs.
I think I have covered most of the points that have been raised in the Debate. Here is the position we have to face. England and Scotland now have conscription, as a result of the decisions to which we have come. Wales is left, the last to be outside. Wales gets all the advantages of the general legislation through this Chamber.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Northern Ireland?"] The case of Northern Ireland has already been debated, and I should be out of Order in trying to answer that interjection at this stage. Our development in Wales is tied up with the development of the economy of this country generally. The creation of prosperity for Wales is also the creation of prosperity in the rest of this country. We shall be partners in all this. If we are to be partners, let us accept our responsibility, and accept the obligations to defend that which we are creating.
The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) made the point that we do not know that there will be an emergency in 1949 or 1950. But dare we take the risk of not ensuring against the possibility of an emergency in 1949? That is the question which one has to answer, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, because he cannot see the source from which fire may come, he fails to insure against fire? We must always be prepared to defend our country with all the powers at our command, no matter what may happen. And Wales must play her part in that great task.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I cannot apologise for continuing the discussion, because I wish to discuss now the second Amendment which stands in my name, and the names of several of my hon. Friends, and I will confine myself to it. I do not propose in anything I say to follow the line of the hon. Member for

East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), I would not like to take the time of the Committee in trying to extricate our cause from the confused and lengthy exposition which he made of his view on this subject. I am certain that if he will consult HANSARD in the morning, he will experience the same difficulty as I did in trying to cut a line through the mass of contradictions to which we were forced to listen earlier this evening. In fact, he started off by misquoting an old Welsh tag. My hon. Friend said, "Cyrddau diwylliadol"; I say that the correct expression is, "Araeth a'r y Pryd"; as every Welshman in the Committee knows very well. I want my hon. Friend to permit me to tell him quite seriously, that even if certain of his fellow countrymen—possibly large numbers of them—disagree with him, he should hesitate to described them as hypocrites. He should hesitate to suggest that he is the only honest Welshman among us.
I have not had the heroic history that my hon. Friend has had, so I am not capable of indulging in the vast pretentious heroics which we heard from him this evening. Up to now, I have not been in the least embarrassed in my constituency by the Welsh Nationalist movement. I have a shrewd suspicion that if my hon. Friend could say the same thing, he would not have delivered himself in this Committee of those outrageous charges at the expense of his own people, I can leave him to the good sense of his constituents in this matter. I have a shrewd suspicion of what is coming. To whatever criticism or condemnation these Amendments relating to Wales have, up to now, been subjected, they have made abundantly clear, what a perfectly stupid, futile thing this Conscription Bill is. I shall confine my remarks to this Bill as it will be administered in Wales. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to tell us, tonight, whether the miners of the Welsh coalfields are to be exempted from call-up for the Armed Forces under this Bill?

The Chairman: That question will arise at a later stage.

Mr. Davies: I am trying to keep within the limits of the Bill as now laid down, and if I succeed in doing that, I shall leave this House tonight a very proud Member, as the only one who has been able to do so in the last four or five hours. If I do not


succeed entirely, I hope I will have the sympathy of the Chair. I am entitled to assume that the miners of Wales will not be called up under this National Service Bill. Nearly the whole of South Wales— and that covers six-sevenths of the population—is a development area. The apprentices who are now being trained there, in order to help in the development of that area, will not be called up. They will have their deferment postponed temporarily and then it will be postponed indefinitely. I assume, too, that very few of our agricultural labourers will be called up under this Bill, because it is known that we suffer grievously from the lack of agricultural labourers.

The Chairman: These questions do not arise now. They may arise later on, but the hon. Member must confine himself now to the precise Amendment which is before the Committee.

Mr. Davies: I will do so, but I think the Committee will appreciate at what I am driving. They will appreciate that the number of exemptions under this Bill in industrial Wales will overwhelmingly exceed the number which will be called up under it.

Mr. Mainwaring: No.

Mr. Davies: I ask my hon. Friend to consider the distribution of industry as it exists in Wales. Mining, whether coal or slate, will have to be excluded from this Bill, and other ancillary industries will have to keep their full staffs, if the coal mines of South Wales are to function properly. I agree with most of the remarks of my hon. Friends when they refer to the reactions of the people of Wales to this Measure. I have no desire to go into the historical reasons why Wales hates compulsion from Westminster and from Whitehall. It is largely because Whitehall did so little for Wales in the inter-war period. That is what is behind the thoughts of the people of Wales. They were treated abominably by successive Governments, which forced half a million people away from this small country. We know the mind of the people of Wales. They have long memories, kindly as they are and they are not likely to forget those years.
11.15 p.m.
I agree that this compulsion is stupid. Everyone who has spoken about Wales has boasted that when there was an appeal

for volunteers, for a cause which was acceptable to the Welsh people, it was always well supported. Wales would respond to the call—without saying any more about its history, I think that is accepted by everybody who knows that country. But I must warn this Government not to be too free with compulsion. That is the way to get the minimum out of those people. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to reconsider the logic of the matter before this Bill is disposed of, and to realise that, so far as Wales is concerned, the overwhelming proportion of our people will have to be exempted from this Bill. We are not asking for that. I am not adopting any heroic pose tonight, because most of my constituents are already excluded from this Bill, and that also applies to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda. I say this Government would get far better results by taking the people of this country into their confidence than by attempting compulsion, which is cheap and miserable and would cut across the sense of freedom of the Welsh people.

The Chairman: The Chairmanrose— —

Mr. Rhys Davies: Mr. Rhys Davies (Westhoughton)rose—

The Chairman: The hon. Member must resume his seat when the Chairman is standing.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. I submit to you, Major Milner, that the hon. Member rose to speak, and is entitled to speak if he caught your eye. If he is not to be heard the remedy is to move, "That the Question be now put."

The Chairman: The hon. Member must permit me to say that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has no right to remain on his feet when the occupant of the Chair, whoever he may be, has risen. That is the objection I took.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask you, Major Milner, whether it is fair to suggest that a Welsh Member representing an English constituency, might have a say in this Debate?

The Chairman: There is no differentiation, but the Committee, in my view, is ready to come to a decision.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Is it not the custom in Committee,


that a Member is entitled to speak more than once, even at this late hour, if he happens to catch your eye?

The Chairman: So far as I am aware.

Mr. Cocks: Do I understand, Major Milner, that the Closure has been moved and carried, and that the Debate is now finished? My hon. Friend rose before you did.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord of the Treasury): Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord of the Treasury)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 97.

Division No. 184.]
AYES
[11.21 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gibbins, J.
Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Gibson, C. W
Marquand, H. A.


Allen Scholefield (Crewe)
Gilzean, A.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Alpass, J. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Censett)
Mellish, R. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Goodrich, H. E.
Mitchison, G. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Moody, A. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Ayles, W. H.
Grey, C. F.
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Grierson, E.
Moyle, A


Bacon, Miss A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Murray, J. D.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Nally, W.


Barton, C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gunter, R. J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J.
Guy, W. H.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Berry, H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
O'Brien, T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H.


Binns, J.
Hall, W. G.
Oliver, G. H.


Blenkinsop, A
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R,
Paget, R. T.


Blyton, W. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Boardman, H.
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, A. M. F


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Haworth, J.
Pargiter, G. A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkin, B. T.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hewitson, Captain M.
Pearson, A.


Buchanan, G.
Holman, P.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Burke, W. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F


Champion, A. J.
House, G.
Popplewell, E.


Chater, D.
Hoy, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hubbard, T.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, M. Philips


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pritt, D. N.


Collindridge, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T


Collins, V. J.
Irving, W. J.
Pryde, D. J.


Colman, Miss G. M
Isaacs, Rt. Hon [...]. A
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Comyns, Dr. L.
Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jay, D. P. T.
Ranger, J.


Corlett, Dr. J
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Daggar, G
Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Daines, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Keenan, W
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
King, E. M.
Sargood, R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Scott-Elliot, W.


Delargy, H. J
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Diamond, J.
Kirby, B. V
Sharp, Granville


Dobbie, W.
Lang, G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Donovan, T.
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Shurmer, P


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Leonard, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edelman, M.
Lever, N. H.
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Levy, B. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, Capt. J. W


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Fairhurst, F.
McAdam, W.
Steele, T.


Farthing, W. J.
McAllister, G.
Stross, Dr. B


Field, Capt W. J
Mack, J. D.
Swingler, S.


Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Forman, J. C.
McKinlay, A. S
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)




Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Watson, W. M
Willis, E.


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E)
Weitzman, D.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J [...]


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Wise, Major F J


Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Woodburn, A


Tiffany, S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woods, G. S


Walkden, E
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Wyatt, W.


Walker, G. H.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams. J L. (Kelvingrove)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Warbey, W. N.
Williamson, T
Mr. Michael Stewart.




NOES.


Barlow, Sir J
Gridley, Sir A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baxter, A. B.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Ramsay, Major S.


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bowen, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Scott, Lord W.


Byers, Frank
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Carmichael, James
Jennings, R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Keeling, E. H
Spence, H. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Kendall, W. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. 
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wadsworth, G.


Duthie, W. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walker-Smith, D


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C.
Maude, J. C.
Yates, V. F


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E



Glyn, Sir R.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Mr. Drewe and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nicholson, G
Commander Agnew

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 305.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[11.30 p.m.


Ayles, W. H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Bowen, R.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Carmichael, James
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cove, W. G.
Lang, G.
Stephen, C.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Longden, F.
Willlams, D. J. (Neath)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.



Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Mr. Byers and Mr. Wadswor[...]th




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Berry, H.
Clitherow, Dr. R.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bing, G. H. C.
Cobb, F. A.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Binns, J.
Coldrick, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Birch, Nigel
Collindridge, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, A R.
Collins, V. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Blenkinsop, A
Colman, Miss G. M.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Blyton, W. R.
Comyns, Dr. L.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Boardman, H.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Corvedale, Viscount


Bacon, Miss A.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Crawley, A.


Baird, J
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Balfour, A.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Daines, P.


Barlow, Sir J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Barton, C.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Baxter, A. B.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Chamberlain, R. A
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Champion, A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bennett, Sir P.
Chafer, D
Delargy, H. J.




Diamond, J.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Raikes, H. V.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Ramsay, Major S.


Dodds, N N.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Randall, H. E.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P W
Keeling, E. H.
Ranger, J.


Donovan, T.
Keenan, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Kendall, W. D
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Drewe, C.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
King, E. M.
Ropner, Col. L.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kinley, J.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Durbin, E. F. M
Kirby, B. V.
Scott, Lord W.


Duthie, W. S.
Lambert, Hon. G
Scott-Elliot, W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lavers, S.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Edelman, M.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sharp, Granville


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Leonard, W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lever, N. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Levy, B. W.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fairhurst, F.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Farthing, W. J.
Logan, D. G.
Solley, L. J.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Foot, M. M.
McAdam, W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McAllister, G.
Spence, H. R.


Fox, Sir G.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mack, J. D.
Steele, T.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Gage, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stross, Dr. B.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
McKinlay, A. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T D
McLeavy, F.
Studholme, H. G.


Gibbins, J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon, Harold (Bromley)
Swingler, S.




Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gibson, C. W
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gitzean, A.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Glyn, Sir R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.).
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon A. (Wakefield)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Grey, C. F.
Marples, A. E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col, R. A. F.


Grierson, E.
Marquand, H. A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Tiffany, S.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mellish, R. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mitchison, G. R
Walkden, E.


Gunter, R. J.
Moody, A. S.
Walker, G. H.


Guy, W. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker-Smith, D.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hale, Leslie
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hall, W. G.
Moyle, A.
Warbey W. N


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Ward, Hon. G. R


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Watson, W. M.


Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Weitzman, D.


Hardy, E. A.
Nicholson, G.
Wells, W, T. (Walsall)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Buxton, Lady
West, D. G


Head, Brig. A. H.
O'Brien, T.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Oldfield, W. H
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Herbert, Sir A. P.
Paget, R. T
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hewitson, Captain M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Palmer, A. M. F
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Holman, P
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, B. T.
Williamson, T


House, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willis, E.


Hoy, J.
Pearson, A
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hubbard, T.
Peart, Capt. T. F
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Piratin, P.
Wise, Major F J


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Woodburn, A.


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Popplewell, E.
Woods, G. S.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wyatt, W.


Irving, W. J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A
Price, M. Philips
Zilliacus, K.


Janner, B.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D



Jay, D. P. T.
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Proctor, W. T



Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Pryde, D. J.
Mr. Joseph Henderson


Jennings, R
Pursey, Cmdr. H
and Mr. Michael Stewart.


Question put, and agreed to.

Chairman to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY] (No. 2)

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69. (King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision for planning the development and use of land it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the following expenditure:—

(1) Any increase in the compensation payable by the Crown under any Act which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) amending the law relating to the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land;
(b) repealing enactments providing for the assessment of compensation, other than compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, in accordance with the provisions of section fifty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944

including any increase which is attributable as aforesaid in the sums payable into the Road Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of expenses of the Minister of Transport;
(2) Any sums required by any Minister for making contributions to local authorities towards compensation paid by them in respect of decisions or orders under the said Act of the present Session, being decisions or orders given or made wholly or partly in the interests of a public service the cost of which is defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament;
(3) Any sums required by the Minister of Town and Country Planning for the payment of grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by those authorities in taking any action under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the discontinuance of uses of land or the alteration or removal of buildings or works; and the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenses incurred in connection with the repayment of stock issued under the said Act."—[Mr. Silkin.]

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask two or three short questions on this Resolution. I am a little puzzled about the meaning of paragraph 1 (b). The Resolution is intended to deal with an increase in compensation payments as a result of the amendment of the law in relation to compensation. When one looks at paragraph 1 (b) one finds the words
… other than compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land.
Surely, what the Resolution is intended to deal with is the payment of compensation

for the compulsory acquisition of land, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning why those words
. . other than compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land
are expressly inserted.
My next point is this. I imagine this Resolution will be the prelude to a recommittal of the Bill. It would be to the convenience of the Committee if the Clauses which are to be considered on that recommittal could be indicated on the Order Paper at the earliest possible date. The third question I wish to ask is whether the Resolution is wide enough now to enable an Amendment to be included to make special provision for the assessment of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land which is, in its true sense, ripe.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) for not being violently opposed to this Financial Resolution. I think I can satisfy him on the three points he has raised. On the first, if he will look at paragraph 1 (b) he will see that the words are:
 … other than compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, in accordance with the provisions of section fifty-seven of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1941.
There are two Acts which provide for compensation on the 1939 basis. They are the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, and the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. The intention of paragraph 1 (b) of the Financial Resolution is to enable compensation to be paid on the new basis in respect of acquisitions under those two Acts. In other words, it widens the basis beyond the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.
On the second point, the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. It is a prelude to re-committal, and I will indicate on the Order Paper the Amendments which are based upon the Financial Resolution. On the third point, I can assure the hon. and learned Member that the Financial Resolution is wide enough. I cannot give him any undertaking as to what will happen on an Amendment which has not yet been put down, but it is wide enough to deal with any such Amendment as he indicated.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The first question I raised was largely due to the fact that a comma appears on the Order Paper where it should not.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: I had hoped we would have some further explanation from the Minister with regard to the purpose of this amended Money Resolution, because I wished to express my opinion on the matter. Does the Minister propose to give the Committee some reasons for this Amendment? If so, I am prepared to wait and hear what he has to say. Otherwise, I should like to make my observations.

The Chairman: That is a question which will arise on the Bill, and not at this moment.

Mr. Silkin: I could state the broad purpose of this Financial Resolution in one sentence. It is to permit the putting before the Committee of certain new Clauses as a new basis of compensation on the acquisition of land, instead of the 1939 basis laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. The actual Clauses are on the Order Paper, and the hon. Member will see that is the form of the new basis of compensation.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to Scotland for planning the development and use of land it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the following expenditure:—

(1) Any increase in the compensation payable by the Crown under any Act which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) amending the law relating to the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land;
(b) repealing enactments providing for the assessment of compensation, other than

compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, in accordance with the provisions of section fifty-three of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945.

including any increase which is attributable as aforesaid in the sums payable into the Road Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of expenses of the Minister of Transport;
(2) Any sums required by any Minister for making contributions to local authorities towards compensation paid by them in respect of decisions or orders under the said Act of the present Session, being decisions or orders given or made wholly or partly in the interests of a public service the cost of which is defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament;
(3) Any sums required by the Secretary of of State for the payment of grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by those authorities in taking any action under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the discontinuance of uses of land or the alteration or removal of buildings or works;

and the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenses incurred in connection with the repayment of stock issued under the said Act."—[Mr. Westwood.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Bedford, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd May, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Dursley, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd May. be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Swindon, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd May. be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section i of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Taunton, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd May be approved. "—[Mr. Oliver.]

Orders of the Day — MATRIMONIAL CAUSES RULES

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Donovan: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947, No. 523), a copy of which was presented on 28th March. be annulled.
The circumstances in which the Order just cited came to be made were shortly these: when the war ended the number of divorce cases coming forward in one year was approximately 50,000, of which the Services provided about 40,000. Accordingly, a demobilised man coming home and finding then for the first time that his home had been broken up by infidelity, faced a wait of some four or five years before he could get a divorce and start a fresh life. In these circumstances, the Lord Chancellor took two steps. The first was to appoint special Commissioners from the ranks of the Bar to help to clear the lists, and the second was the appointment of a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Denning to inquire into, and report upon, what procedural reforms were, necessary in the general interest of litigants, and with a view to reducing costs.
The Committee was instructed to regard its work as urgent. It issued its first Interim Report—having been appointed in June, 1946—in July, 1946. A second Interim Report was issued in November, 1946, and its Final Report, in January, 1947. By its first Interim Report, the Committee recommended that the interval of six months between the pronouncement of the decree nisi and the decree absolute should be reduced to six weeks. That was implemented at once. By its second Interim Report, issued in November, 1946, the Committee recommended, among other things, that the county court judges should be empowered to try divorce causes, chiefly the undefended and the short defended causes: and that while doing so they should have the status of High Court judges. That recommendation was implemented within a matter of weeks, and accordingly, has been working now for some three or four months. From all accounts, it has been an unqualified success, because with the assistance of the county court judges the number of divorce cases tried in the first three months of this year was 15,000.

If one multiplies that number by three— not by four, because of the long vacation —one gets a total of 45,000 cases for the year. Accordingly, it is clear that, so far as the removal of the delays is concerned, a machine has now been provided which is capable of meeting any demand which is likely to be put upon it. One hopes that the rate of divorce cases in a year will certainly not reach 50,000 again.
It is relevant to notice that the reform represented by calling in the assistance of the county court judges was not universally popular in legal circles. There were some who predicted that it would not work; but it has been an unqualified success. For his initiative in appointing the Denning Committee, and for his energy in pressing through the two reforms which I have mentioned, this country owes a very real debt of gratitude to the present Lord Chancellor.
There remains the further question of reducing costs. The Denning Committee in its second Interim and Final Report made about 50 recommendations for that purpose. The Report was presented to Parliament in February, 1947, and in the same month, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) the Solicitor-General said that the President of the Divorce Division had entrusted a small committee in that Division with the task or redrafting the divorce rules in the light of the Denning Committee's recommendations. That Committee consisted of two judges of the Divorce Division, two divorce registrars and the gentleman who was secretary of the Denning Committee. On 6th March of this year, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), who asked whether those recommendations were accepted by the Government, the Attorney-General said:
Save that it is proposed to retain the necessity for an affidavit in support of a petition—but with a modified procedure designed to save time and expense—the procedural recommendations made in Part II of the second Interim Report of the Denning Committee are accepted in principle. But in the course of preparing the detailed Rules it has been found necessary to make a number of modifications or variations of the actual proposals made by the Committee, and I do not suggest that the Rules when made will represent exactily what was proposed in every single instance. With very few exceptions, however. the substance of these valuable re-


commendations will be incorporated in the new code, or be given effect to by administrative action. The new Rules which will shortly be issued will incorporate a number of the procedural reforms recommended in the Final Report of the Denning Committee. Others are still under consideration, and I cannot make a definite statement about them today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1947; Vol. 434; C. 109/110.]
On 28th March the Order now prayed against was published containing the new Rules referred to in that answer, and out of the 50 recommendations made by the Denning Committee for the purpose of reducing costs and simplifying the procedure 20 at least appear to be rejected, and in some cases the proposals for simplifying divorce procedure have been so altered as to rob the recommendation in question of most of its value. May I say two things at once in order to get them out of the way. The first is that, of course, no committee can expect that its recommendations must be implemented as a matter of course, and no member of the Denning Committee could accept that. Secondly, however, when recommendations are made which are described by a Minister in this House as extremely valuable, if those rules are published which purport to show that many of those recommendations are rejected and others materially altered it is not unreasonable that one should ask for an explanation. So far there has been no word of explanation of these alterations or rejections.
May I give to the House one instance of a recommendation that has been rejected? The House will know that if a person wants to start a divorce action, he or she writes out his or her case on a piece of paper which is called a petition. In that you set out what you think are your grounds for wanting a divorce. When you have done that you sign it, and then when you go to court you go into the witness box and swear that what is in your affidavit is true. Nevertheless, although that is so, before you get to the witness box you have to swear an affidavit that what is in your petition is true. In the King's Bench Division, if you swear once to the truth of your story, and do it in the witness box in conditions which allow for cross-examination, that is regarded as good enough. The Denning Committee thought that should be good enough for the Divorce Division. These affidavits cost 30s. a time if you do not employ counsel, and £3 a time if you

do. Therefore, that recommendation was made, but is rejected in the new Rules. The affidavit in support of the petition is still there, and one does not know why. One has to guess why, and it may be said, "Well, you ought not to encourage people to throw charges of adultery about too lightly." The answer to that is that under the new Rules a petition, if it is settled by a solicitor or counsel, has to be signed by him, which in itself is a valuable safeguard against irresponsible allegations. The second answer is that evidence was given before the Denning Committee that in not a single case did a petitioner who signed his petition and was then told "Now you have to swear to the truth of this" go back and alter what he had said in his unsworn petition.
Again, one may recall that you can, by way of a defence to an action for libel, make a charge of adultery in the King's Bench Division and swear to it in the witness box in the ordinary way without a previous affidavit. Therefore, there seems to be no reason for retaining this affidavit in support of the petition. See what it leads to. If the petitioner has to swear by affidavit to the truth of his petition, so also must the respondent swear to the truth of his or her answer, and so there has to be an affidavit in support of the answer. Then, if you are going to amend your petition in order to correct a mistake, or to add some new charge, then you must have another affidavit in support of the altered petition. So the affidavits grow and grow, and that is one crop we can very well do without.
Another illustration will show how a recommendation designed to simplify the procedure has been altered. Consider the case of a woman who has committed perhaps one or two acts of adultery under great provocation, maybe a long separation from her husband during the war. Her husband gets to know of this, and issues his petition. He may also have been guilty of adultery, but his wife will not know that, and she will not know that he will have to ask for the court's discretion in his favour. All she gets is a copy of the petition and a notice saying that if she wants to defend she must "enter an appearance." There is no one at this stage to advise this wife, and what she thinks is meant by "entering an appearance" is going up to the Law Courts in the Strand and personally


appearing. There is no one to say to her at that moment that all this means is that she has to fill in a form, and that, though she might be guilty, she, nevertheless, has a right to be heard about the custody of her children and about their maintenance. She does not know that she must fill in this form, and that unless she does so she has no right to be heard at all. Evidence was given by social workers before the Denning Committee that many wives and husbands were losing their rights because they had not advice at this critical stage A well-to-do person will have a solicitor to advise, but we were particularly concerned with the case of the poor litigant, and so we said that there should go with this petition a simple form to tell the woman what rights she had, and what she should do. She could fill it in and send it back to the Registrar of the Divorce Court. I should say that we debated whether she should be asked to fill in the form in duplicate, but finally we said "No" because we felt there was more chance of getting one form back rather than two, and this form would also serve as an acknowledgment of service.
What do these new Rules do? For one form and one envelope, the Committee set up by the President of the Divorce Division with no consultation with the Denning Committee has substituted four forms and no envelope, and three of these forms have to be filled up and sent back by the woman. What is the purpose of this? Is it in the interests of litigants that there should be three forms where there could be one? I must say that I cannot understand why this recommendation has been treated in this way, and I submit that it means that its value will largely be lost. It may be said that the registrar has not the time to make a copy of a form and send it to the petitioner's solicitor. But, under the reforms which have been accepted, the divorce registrars are to be relieved of a great deal of work and they have time to do this. A copy of the defence is always made by the registrar in the county court and sent to the plaintiff, and I do not know why this reform has been treated in this way.
One final example of perhaps another, and a different, angle of this matter. Let us take the case of an insane wife Evidence was brought before the Denning Committee that, in quite a large number of cases, this insanity was due to child-

birth. The husband waits for five years and then brings his petition for divorce. Under the old rules, he had to serve a copy of the petition on the medical superintendent of the mental hospital and then had to have the official solicitor appointed guardian ad litem, and then had to serve another copy of the petition on him. We recommended that the double service should be cut out, and that the official solicitor should be appointed guardian ad litem, "if he so consents." We added these words because the official solicitor will be put to expense in this matter. He will have to verify the incurability of the insanity and he will have to make various inquiries and consequently he will be put to out-of-pocket expenses. The question arises as to who is to pay. In existing circumstances, before the new rules came into force, the official solicitor would say to the petitioner, "I will act as guardian ad litem if you will undertake to pay my costs." That was usually agreed to because it is cheaper for the petitioner to employ the official solicitor. What do these new Rules do? By Rule 64 (4) it is said:
Where a person entitled to defend or intervene in any cause to which these Rules relate is of unsound mind, the Official Solicitor shall, upon the filing of the petition, be his guardian ad litem.
No consent is now required.
Suppose we have a rich petitioner in the circumstances I suggest. When asked if he will pay the official solicitor's costs he can say, "No. Why should I? You have to be the guardian ad litem anyway." It is true that the official solicitor, at the end of the case, can ask the judge to make an order that the petitioner should pay the costs. The judge is not bound to do it. Moreover, an undertaking or security for payment from the petitioner's solicitor is a very much better guarantee that these expenses will be paid than an order against the petitioner at the end of the case. Therefore, the only source for payment is public funds; and, here, I would ask the House to remember what Parliament has said about this matter, in Section 99 (2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. The Subsection says;
No rule of the Supreme Court which may involve an increase of expenditure out of public funds shall be made except with the concurrence of the Treasury.
It then goes on to deal with another matter not here relevant.
I thought it would be extremely unfair to thrust a point like this upon the Attorney-General at the last moment, so I have given him notice of it, and also a list of the 22 recommendations which, so far as these Rules show, have not been implemented. I think two questions arise. One is, has the Treasury consent been given to Rule 64 (4)? If it has, why should taxpayers be put to the risk of having to pay a rich petitioner's costs, in such a case as this? If it has not, then is not the conclusion reinforced that these Rules really require a second look? I could go through all these 22 points, and give case after case showing that the cost of obtaining justice is being made unnecessarily high, without any compensating advantage in any other direction. I do respectfully suggest that when one finds that sort of thing happening, then it is a completely proper function of this House of Commons to be vigilant in the matter; and the knowledge that it is vigilant, and will, I hope, continue to be, will do no harm.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. John Foster: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to apologise to the House for speaking at this late hour; but it is not the fault of the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) who moved the Prayer or of the people who support it. Constant conversations we have had with the usual channels resulted in moving the Prayer from a day when it would have been convenient to the House, having regard to the other Business that day, and when it could have been taken at ten o'clock. It was moved from then to yesterday. It was again moved to today, in the hope that it would be as convenient today as it would have been on Thursday. I think it is a pity that, when the usual channels are consulted, advice that turns out to be so very misleading should be given, or that the House has to apply its mind to these rather technical matters at 12.15 in the morning, when it could have quite properly done so on Thursday at 10 in the evening. I think it is most unfortunate.
There is one broad question of principle in this Prayer. There was the Report of the Denning Committee, to which the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester has alluded. That was in three instalments. It was the result of a number of sittings at which evidence was taken, and

of a number of sittings at which evidence and various suggestions were fully considered. The Denning Committee made certain recommendations, and, as the mover of this Prayer stated, the Committee naturally did not expect that all their recommendations would be adopted, but what I think the Committee, which sat conscientiously and heard evidence objectively, could expect was that, where the Executive, in the shape of the Lord Chancellor or a sub-committee appointed by him, rejected certain recommendations, the reasons should be fully stated. Otherwise, we get the position that a committee sits and hears the evidence and then makes its recommendations and the Executive, in what must necessarily seem, from this point of view, to be a hole-in-the-corner business, takes the recommendations and says, "We like this one, but we do not like that," so that nobody knows why they reject certain recommendations. As far as one knows, they heard no contrary evidence; in the majority of cases, the evidence was all one way, so that one wonders where the Executive, in the shape of the Lord Chancellor, got the idea that the recommendations were not worth accepting.
Nobody here knows; and I would be willing to prophesy that, if the learned Law Officers answer the question at all, they will not answer it in detail. I hope I am wrong, but I am willing to prophesy that they will not take the 22 recommendations and will not give the House the reasons why they were rejected. I hope the learned Attorney-General will say why they rejected the recommendation for a simple form, to which the hon. and learned Member has just referred, which would enable the respondent to fill up a single form, and why, instead, they adopted a complicated provision by which the respondent has to fill in a form couched in technical legal language, send another document of service couched in similar language, and also send in duplicate a memorandum of appearance. He may explain why, and I would like him to do so, but I am afraid that he will answer in general terms, and say this; "This Committee is very lucky, as it has had 50 per cent. of its recommendations accepted, whereas, under Conservative Governments, they were lucky if they got 10 per cent. accepted. What on earth is the Denning Committee grumbling about? Why do they object if 50 per cent. of their


recommendations are accepted, and why make what is probably a veiled attack on His Majesty's Judges?" I am afraid that is the answer we shall get, when what we want is a reasoned account of why these 22 recommendations were not accepted. The reason we want that is because we have had no evidence of the steps which the Lord Chancellor had taken to consider whether these recommendations were sound or not.
I wish to give two instances, which I think are striking, where the recommendations were in favour of cheapening divorce, but where, for some reason which I cannot fathom, but which the Law Officers might explain, they have been rejected. They are non-technical. In certain cases, the respondent, on the other side of the divorce, cannot be found. Before the case can be heard, every attempt has to be made to find this person, and one of the attempts which has to be made is by advertising in the newspapers. An advertisement in one of the papers prescribed, a very popular newspaper with a large circulation, actually costs over £20 per insertion, and many poor persons have had to abandon their cases altogether, and go without the divorce to which, otherwise, they would be entitled, because they could not afford the £20. The Denning Committee recommended that the procedure followed under the Trustee Act should be followed here, and that an official advertisement should be put in the newspapers in such a form as to give the names of the various divorce cases in which persons were being sought. In other words, one advertisement should cover several divorce cases—Smith, Brown and Jones. It should be put in at the public expense in cases where poor persons cannot afford to pay for it. There is nothing in the Rules about that. I should like to hear from the Law Officers why it is not in the Rules.
In undefended nullity cases, the Rules demanded two medical inspectors. The Denning Committee were satisfied that there was no need for inspection by the medical inspectors, or for their attendance. Therefore, it recommended that, in undefended nullity cases, the certificate of the family doctor should be sufficient. We have, I think, sufficient faith in the medical profession to allow that. What has happened in the Rules? Now

the costs are: attendance before a medical inspector, 10 guineas; attendance in court, 5 guineas. The costs are, therefore reduced from 25 to 15 guineas. But how can such costs be afforded by poor persons? In many cases they have to give up the case to which they are entitled just because they are poor, and yet the law, for no earthly reason, maintains this demand.
I am sure the House is waiting for the Law Officers to give some explanation why this principle has been disregarded, and why, even if the labour and work of the Committee has been rejected, this House and the public should not be given the reason why serious recommendations are made and not accepted. The Committee was lucky in having its first two recommendations fully and promptly accepted by the Lord Chancellor. I think that this is the first instance of a mixed Prayer, if I may call it that, in this House, where both Government and Opposition Members have supported the Prayer. Lawyers are often thought to be cynical, but here is an instance where they are joining together in the cause of law reform which they have at heart. I feel sure that the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers have the reform of the law at heart, but if there is any fault to be found in those who have to deal with the procedure of divorce, it is that they think that changes must only be made slowly. They are, in fact, too conservative. Surely, it is the duty of the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers to show a little firmness and to say, "The Denning Committee have recommended this. If you think you have a good reason against it, we will look at it, but, otherwise, you must put these reforms into practice."
One wonders, perhaps, whether the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers have shown themselves to be a little reticent in bringing about these reforms. Law Officers, as I said, are sometimes blamed for not wanting anything but the advantage of their own pockets. But I think this is an instance where the House should take on itself the duty of giving a little more courage and a little more pep to the Law Officers and to the Lord Chancellor. Hon. Members will know the story of the lawyer who said that when he was young he had lost a lot of cases which he should have won, and that, when he was old, he had won a lot of cases which he should have lost, and that,


therefore, on the whole, justice had been done. I am grateful for the reforms which have been accomplished in the Rules, but I would like the Rules to be even better. For that reason I invite the Government to say that they will reconsider the matter in the light of what has been and will be said here tonight, and will be prepared to introduce yet another set of Rules, which will bring the recommendations of the Denning Committee, if they are worth accepting, into effect.

12.25 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I would like, if I may without impertinence, at the very outset of my observations, to express the very sincere and warm appreciation of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and, indeed, of the Government for the most important, valuable and, I venture to think, significant work of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Denning. Although, of course, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) said, under our constitutional system, it must be for the Minister concerned and eventually for the Government to decide to what extent they can implement the recommendations which may be made to them by committees appointed as the Denning Committee was—that is one of the responsibilities of Government which cannot be transferred to outside bodies—I want to make it at the outset that, although all the recommendations of the Denning Committee have not yet been implemented, not one of them has been finally rejected.
On the contrary, many of the recommendations—those which appeared to be the most urgent and most important— are already actually being carried out in practice. Arrangements are still being worked out in regard to others which are likely to be embodied in further Rules in the near future. As for still others—not, I think, very numerous, but some of them, perhaps, raising more difficult and more controversial issues, or giving rise to unexpected practical troubles of one kind or another—they are still the subject of consideration, and there has been no decision finally to reject any of these proposals. I shall return to that point, but I do feel entitled to say, as the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster)

anticipated that perhaps, I might, that the last of these Reports was only presented on 21st January, and' it is not often that recommendations of committees have been put into operation so expeditiously or, I would add, so successfully as has been done in this case.
Before I go into any further detail as to what has been done—and I will try to deal with each of the points which have been raised—I ought to explain the actual machinery by which recommendations of this kind, dealing with the administration, and procedure of our courts, can be carried into effect, because the matter is not, as the hon. Member for Northwich appeared to suggest, one which is exclusively within the control of the Executive. One method of carrying out recommendations such as those which were embodied in the Reports of this Committee would, no doubt, be by ad hoc legislation. One could have a Statute about it dealing with the very numerous detailed proposals which were made, but manifestly that would be a most inconvenient method of dealing with detailed and technical matters of this kind. The current Statute, I think, is the Judicature Act, 1925. Parliament consequently provided that there should be what is called a Rules Committee constantly in being, and able, from time to time, as occasion required, to introduce new Rules or to make modifications in existing Rules.
That committee, in no sense a committee of the Executive, is normally composed of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, four other judges, two members of the Bar, and two solicitors. Normally it would fall to -that body, consisting of experts of very great standing and experience, to make such Rules as they thought right in the discharge of the responsibility which has been vested in them by Parliament, and in the light, of course, of any recommendations which might be made from time to time, as, for instance, by a committee appointed as Mr. Justice Denning's committee was. That would normally be the position, and the normal method by which recommendations of this kind would be given legislative effect.
The position was altered during the war, to the extent that the Rules Com-


mittee was suspended, and the Lord Chancellor was empowered to make rules, subject to the concurrence of two of His Majesty's judges. The practice throughout the period of emergency has been to implement, as far as might be, the general intention which Parliament had expressed in regard to this form of subordinate legislation in the Judicature Act, 1925. The Lord Chancellor has followed the practice, first, of consulting such of His Majesty's judges as appeared to be able to give useful advice on the particular matter which was under consideration; and second, of seeking, as he is bound by the statutory provisions to seek, the concurrence of the two judges who are most immediately concerned with the Rules under question. That is to say, if they were Rules affecting the procedure of the King's Bench Division, I apprehend the Lord Chancellor would have to seek the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and of one of the judges of that Division before the Rules were made; if they were Rules affecting the procedure of the Probate, Divorce or Admiralty Division, then he would seek the concurrence of the President of that Division and one of the judges of that Division before the Rules were made.
What I want to make perfectly clear to the House is, that this is not really an Executive matter at all. It is a matter only under the laws which Parliament has passed for dealing with subordinate legislation of this kind, in which my noble Friend cannot act alone. But even under the emergency legislation of the war he has to secure the consent of at least two of His Majesty's judges. Not only is it obviously desirable that in matters of this kind, where the question of the procedure of the courts are involved, the Lord Chancellor should avail himself of the great experience of His Majesty's judges, but he is obliged under the existing law so to do. Moreover, as from the first day of next month the procedure will revert to the normal, the Rules Committee, established under the Act of 1925, will come into being again, and the power to deal with these matters will once more become vested in the Rules Committee, that being the machinery which exists for dealing with matters of this kind and implementing recommendations of this sort.
I want to explain to the House how these three successive reports of Mr. Justice Denning's committee have been or are being dealt with. Broadly, the position is this. The whole of the recommendations in the first Report have been implemented by administrative action or by new Rules. Rather more than half the recommendations in the second Report have been carried into effect by administrative action or by Rules. The position in regard to the third Report does not yet arise, because the matters contained in that report, made only in the early part of this year, are still under consideration. My noble Friend has indicated a general view about them, but, if I may use the sacred phrase, they are still receiving active consideration, and in due course, no doubt, Rules will appear in regard to them.
Speaking in general terms, so far as the first and second Reports were concerned there were three main principles underlying them. The first was the avoidance of delay; the second, reduction of costs; and the third might, I think, be described as a general simplification in the Rules of procedure and a general rationalisation of them. So far as the problem of delay in the courts is concerned—not the delay in the preparation of cases before they get to the courts, which is really where the grave delay has been occurring—the problem has been largely solved. That in itself is a not unremarkable achievement when one remembers the difficult situation which existed hitherto. In 1945, 25,000 odd petitions were filed, and 25,000 odd were disposed of. In 1946, 43,000 petitions were filed and in that year 33,000 were dealt with by the adoption of various ad hoc expedients, such as the appointment of commissioners of assize, the use of judges of the King's Bench Division, and so on. These were expedients which involved a good deal of inconvenience and dislocation of the ordinary work of the High Court.
It was in those circumstances that the Denning Committee recommended that substantially the whole of the burden of undefended cases should be taken from the shoulders of the High Court judges and transferred to the county court judges sitting as special divorce commissioners of the High Court, and sitting in the various local county courts in that way. That proposal, after the proper consultations, was adopted. The change was made on


1st January this year, and if again I may be permitted to say so, the results have fully justified the recommendation of the Committee and the confidence which my noble Friend had in the county court system of judges.
The figures were, indeed, a little more attractive than those given by my learned Friend. For the first three months of this year, 17,000-odd petitions were filed, and 16,826 were disposed of. Those are interesting figures because they show that the courts are now keeping abreast of the number of causes set down for trial. They also show, of course, that the number of divorces is still rising and that those who are seeking divorces are more numerous than has ever before been the case. No doubt a vast proportion of these wrecked marriages is the result of war circumstances; and I think that there is reason to hope that after this year we shall have reached the peak and the figure will come down. But it is an alarmingly high figure, and it is clear that it will be higher this year than ever before.
Regarding delay in dealing with these cases, numerous as they are, the time lag between setting down a petition and trial is something between one month and two and a half months in the case of undefended suits. I am not saying that all delays have been eliminated. There was one recommendation as to the three weeks interval between the service of the petition and the setting down of the case for trial if the respondent did not intend to defend. There is a small delay there. This is a matter which, in the light of a little further short experience, may well be dealt with by further Rules. The recommendation has not been finally rejected. This is important in view of what my hon. Friend said about the long period of delay which has hitherto existed in these cases. Nor, of course, are we dealing with the very great delay which still exists in coping with the really frightful arrears of Service cases which have not yet reached the courts at all. Those are cases in the course of preparation. Very great progress has been made in dealing with them under the new arrangements which were announced in the House, but it may still be over two years before all those arrears are wiped out as far as the procedure of the courts is concerned or until such a lengthy delay has been eliminated.
I come now to the question of costs. Here the position is not quite so satisfac-

tory. Taking the ordinary run of typical undefended cases, the average cost of a petition under the old Rules worked out at £75 5s. 10d. That figure has been reduced by the recommendations of the Denning Committee, which have actually been implemented already, to £66 15s. 7d. But this is the point I want to endorse, because I cannot think that it has been fully appreciated by hon. Members or perhaps even by the Members of the Committee itself. If every recommendation which the Committee made in regard to this aspect of the matter had been adopted, the additional saving in the ordinary run of costs would only have been a further £4. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It is no use hon. Members saying, "Oh, no." I have several typical examples here. I am not dealing with a petition for nullity or cases where there has to be medical evidence or where the petition has to be advertised in the Press for one reason or another. Nonetheless, it is not helpful for hon. Members to cry, "Oh, no." We have been into this matter with the greatest care. We have details and recommendations and we have what they actually worked out in practice.
It is perfectly true there may be an exceptional case where an advertisement has to be issued or where a doctor is called in to give evidence, but what I am dealing with is a typical average case. That is in some ways a disappointing result, and that results from the fact that the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Denning adopted what was a typical British compromise instead of a recommendation which some people hoped that they might make—that the county court judges should discharge these functions as county court judges in the county courts under county court rules. Instead, they recommended that although county court judges should be the persons who should discharge these functions they should assume the mantle of High Court commissioners and operate under High Court Rules and with High Court scales of costs. That is why the proposals did not involve a drastic saving in costs which might otherwise have occurred.
I am not proposing to take up the time of the House at this time of the night by going into the 21 recommendations which have not been rejected but which have not yet been adopted. I want to refer to the ones that have been specifically mentioned. The first of them was


mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester and was in regard to an affidavit in support of a petition. Hon. Members will know that in the courts in an affidavit the petitioner swears that there has been no connivance and collusion in regard to the divorce. One of the reasons why that recommendation has not yet been adopted is that it was felt at the beginning of each case that there might have to be an oral explanation to the petitioner of what collusion and connivance meant, and it would not only be inconvenient to do that in court, but it might develop into something which would become a meaningless formula, and, therefore, would lose its merit to a large extent.

Mr. Donovan: It is quite true that the petitioner does so swear, but he is not swearing to a question of fact. He really says, "In my opinion I have committed no act which in law amounts to collusion, connivance, or condonation." Really that opinion of his is completely worthless. That is why Section 4 of the 1937 Act, as the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) will remember, lays the duty of saying there has been no collusion, condonation, or connivance upon the judge, and there is so much of that today that one should not shift the duty on to the petitioner.

The Attorney-General: I can only say, in answer to my hon. and learned Friend, that that was not the view of the utility of this affidavit by the persons of very great experience whose duty it was to make sure there was no collusion or connivance. It was felt that if the petitioner had to deal with this matter at the very outset of the case, before the petition was filed, and if he had this explained, as members of the solicitors branch would explain it before they got their clients to swear, it was more likely that the obligation to avoid collusion or connivance would be carried out and adhered to. That was the view taken in regard to it by those who, under the present Act of Parliament, are responsible for implementing these Rules. The position now is that the affidavit is combined with the petition; it is actually part of the same sheet of paper, and that will reduce the costs. There is no need to reswear an affidavit if the petition is amended, so what appeared to be the main objection

to the affidavit has gone. The affidavit remains of importance with regard to collusion, but there is no occasion to reswear it or incur heavy costs in regard to that matter.

Mr. J. Foster: Does the Attorney-General realise that the petitioner, under the new Rules, has to state whether the petition is presented in collusion with the respondent or co-respondent? Therefore, the whole of his argument falls to the ground because the petitioner has already stated in his petition that there is no collusion and the solicitor has already explained to the petitioner what collusion is.

The Attorney-General: It appeared to those responsible for this matter, and I hope it will so appear to the House, that there was a significant difference in what might be stated by counsel or solicitors and what was sworn to by the petitioner.

Mr. Foster: With respect, the learned Attorney-General is wrong about that. Under the old Rules the petition does not contain any statement about collusion or connivance.

The Attorney-General: That is not the point. The point is that under the existing procedure the petitioner is required to pledge his oath that there is no collusion or connivance. It was thought by those on whom Parliament has bestowed responsibility in this matter that that was desirable. He is still required to pledge his oath as to this matter. The hon. Members may not agree with the reasons, but they asked me to give them. It is the responsibility of those who make the Rules to decide what these Rules should be. I have merely indicated the reasons which actuated their minds in regard to this matter at this stage.
My hon. Friends raised the question about the forms. They pointed out that it was recommended that the respondent should fill in only one form, the answers to which would serve for several purposes. It would be an acknowledgement of service, memorandum of appearance, and a statement of the respondent's intentions as to whether he was going to defend or ask for any particular relief or custody of children or matters of that kind. That, on the face of it, was not an unattractive proposal, but there were practical difficulties. Nobody could loathe forms, nor refuse readily to fill them up more than I, but if there was only the one form—the


memorandum of appearance—the respondent who received it and who, on receiving it did not wish to do anything, would be able to ignore it and throw it in the waste paper basket. The result would be that the petitioner, in that event, not knowing whether service by post had been effective, would have to effect personal service and would have to go to the expense of personal service.
It was thought that it would be more convenient, during what is an experimental period, to provide a form for acknowledging service, so that the person who had been served should at least make it clear that he had received notice and the petitioner could go ahead without having to effect personal service. The memorandum of appearance is part of the same form. There is a perforation, and they can be' torn apart. It is part of the one form on which it is shown whether any relief is required. The reason is that it is simply too much, under existing staffing conditions in the registries, to impose on the clerks in these courts the responsibility for copying out fifty thousand forms, and it is felt that no undue hardship will be placed on the respondents if they are asked to copy out the form twice. When the divorce actions become fewer, as they probably will in the year after this, the matter will be considered again.
I have been asked about simplicity in the forms and while I agree that the forms must be in simple language, it has to be remembered that one must be certain that clarity and certainty are not sacrificed for simplicity. It by no means follows that because the official solicitor has not obtained an advanced undertaking as to his costs from the petitioner that he would have to look to the public funds for remuneration. In the ordinary way he would obtain costs from the trial judge, and only in the event of his being unable to enforce the order which had been made would the question of recouping from public funds arise, and the procedure under the Poor Persons' Act will be the same. Section 99 (2) of the Adjudicature Act, which has been referred to has hitherto been regarded as applying only to those, cases where normally, and inevitably, the new Rules are going to impose a direct charge on public funds. Many Rules make a charge on public funds, some, for instance, by increasing the number of clerks employed in the registries, and it has not been the custom to consult the

Treasury on Rules of this kind. It is expressly provided in this statute that they cannot be challenged, and the matter is really of no moment so far as their validity is concerned.
The hon. Member for Northwich raised the question of advertisement. I can dispose of that very shortly, just making one correction in his observations. In the vast majority of cases, so I am informed, these advertisements have to be inserted only in local papers, where the cost is quite small, nothing approaching the figure of £20 Or £25 that he mentioned. But this is one of the recommendations. It is one of a good many practical differences in the machinery at present under examination. There is no intention finally to reject the recommendation.
Then there was the question of medical evidence in nullity cases. There, in the view of those responsible in this matter, it was felt that family doctors were not always competent to deal with these difficult cases. One does not want to go into details. But they are cases of a highly specialised nature, where a great deal of experience is required before an informed opinion, on which a court ought to act, can be given. It was thought for that reason that there ought to be official inspectors appointed for this purpose. So far as their attendance at court is concerned, the fact is that they are very frequently required to give evidence, and if they were not present in a court great delay and inconvenience would result.
I have dealt as shortly as I can with the points that have been raised, but I want to make it clear again that all the recommendations, including those that have already been implemented by these Rules, will be considered further in the light of experience, and in the light, no doubt, of the observations which have been made in this discussion. I do not think it is fully recognised that there are difficulties in introducing into our existing machinery an entirely new code of procedure, especially at a time when the flood of this particular kind of litigation is at an unprecedented height. But nobody is more anxious than my noble Friend, or, indeed, than I, that our laws should be simplified, and that the courts should be made more accessible, so that the law is, in a very true sense, the servant of the people. I hope my hon. Friends will take the view that the present Rules are, at least, a very substantial instalment on


account, and that four-fifths of a loaf are better than no bread at all; and that they will, in those circumstances, withdraw this Prayer.

12.58 a.m.

Mrs. Corbet: I was very interested to hear the reply of the Attorney-General. I was, nevertheless very shocked to realise that these costs in the divorce cases are not to be lowered, as I had hoped, and as, I am sure, most of my hon. Friends here had hoped. Many years of experience among people who cannot afford to pay these costs have convinced me that something must be done in this matter, and even if the Denning Committee has not been able to lay its finger on the method by which it should be done, we must ask the Government to do everything possible to get these costs reduced to a reasonable figure. Many appalling cases of misery have come to my notice, and I should be 10th to think that anything we could possibly do to avoid them would not be done.
I wanted particularly to press home a point that the Denning Committee made with regard to the welfare of the children in the divorce cases. It is unfortunate that the High Court procedure does not allow the possibility of independent evidence being obtained as to what is really the best for the welfare of the children. I have had an opportunity of working in a juvenile court, and I know the importance of having every possible intimation with regard to the home life of the children, and advice as to what is best for the children. It has come to be regarded as a natural thing that anybody deciding upon the future welfare of children should have such reports available to them. The Denning Committee did ask that this sort of skilled advice and guidance should be available to the judge who has to decide what is to happen to the children, and that recommendation was a very wise one and wholly in accordance with the concern which the country feels about these children. One has only to glance at the Curtis Report to realise the lack of care and consideration given to the welfare of the children of divorced parties. I should like to cite one case which came quite recently to my notice. It is a case where the father and mother were equally guilty of the kind of conduct—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the care of children does not come within these Rules. We are discussing the Rules just now, and we can only discuss what is in them.

Mr. Janner: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. Lady proposes to refer to one of the recommendations made by the Denning Committee? As I understand it, the reason for this Prayer is that the Statutory Rule and Order does not contain all the provisions which the Denning Committee had intended should be incorporated.

Mr. Speaker: I know that is quite a point, but, of course, while one can object, on the Prayer against this Order, on account of the things that are in it, we cannot discuss what is not in the Order.

Mr. Pritt: Further to that point of Order. There is a provision of the Statutory Rule relating to the procedure on questions of the custody of, and access to, the children, which, I humbly suggest, comes near enough to justify the hon. Lady developing the matter to some extent.

The Attorney-General: I do not know if it would help if I should intervene here. but I made it clear that these recommendations, or the most important recommendations, as I agree they are, were made in the third Report—the last Report. The present Rules do not propose in any way to implement that Report.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that clarifies the position in this matter.

Mrs. Corbet: I can only say that, if the Rules do not propose to deal with any of the recommendations of the third Report, perhaps I ought to submit to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Further to that point of Order. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will look at the explanatory note at the end of the Rules which we are considering, he will read:
the recommendations made in the second, interim and final Report of the Committee on Matrimonial Causes,
and it would, therefore, appear that the Rules are intended to implement the


recommendations made in both the second arid third Reports.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Attorney-General dealt fully with that point.

Mrs. Corbet: What he said, Sir, was that these Rules did not purport to cover the recommendations of the final Report. But if what my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) has just said is correct, I think, perhaps, I might be allowed to finish what I was saying in regard to this aspect of the situation, which is not provided for in the Rules before the House.

The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might just say that it is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that certain quite minor matters contained in the third Report are affected by these Rules. But, as far as this major recommendation is concerned, the Rules do not purport to deal with it. It appears to be a question which will have to be dealt with by legislation, and which will be incapable of being dealt with by the Rules at all. That is why it is still under consideration.

Mrs. Corbet: It may be that legislation will be required, but I am wondering whether it would not be possible for a Rule to be formulated quite quickly whereby, pending legislation, there might be some attempt to make available to the judge deciding the custody of children, some officer such as the probation officer, who, we understand, would be willing to act in this matter, so that, as quickly as possible, there may be some skilled advice available to the judge disposing of the children. I hope that the Attorney-General will bear that in mind.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Janner: I make no apology for detaining the House for a few minutes, even at this late hour, because I feel that the matter raised this evening is one of extreme importance and urgency. It is the question of urgency which I am afraid my right hon. and learned Friend has overlooked. I hope that by the time we have finished this discussion, we shall have a promise from him of a somewhat more tangible nature. While I agree that a number of the provisions—I am speaking now as a practising solicitor to whom these problems come

very frequently—contained in the Statutory Rule and Order are excellent steps in the right direction, I feel that it would have been better if we could have had the whole of the recommendations which it was intended to accept, brought within the provisions of this Rule and Order.
All these changes of rules and the constant variety of Orders which come into force make life very difficult in a solicitor's office, and certainly do not facilitate the expeditious handling of cases by the staff employed. I think it is wrong that Orders of this description should be issued piecemeal. My right hon. and learned Friend's idea—;I do not know where he has got it from—about the saving of a maximum of out of a total of 66, is not, in my view, a proper assessment of the position. It may very well be that, in a large number of cases, one might only have a saving of that description, but there are very many other cases in which the various other steps which have been recommended by the Committee, if adopted, would minimise the cost by a much greater amount. Let us examine one or two of the steps in the course of proceedings. We have already had raised the question of the affidavit with a petition. In addition to being an unnecessary document, the affidavit creates an unnecessary expense. The petition itself can contain all the information necessary, as the matter ultimately has to be brought before the court, anyhow. Then there is the question of the cost of the petition; not only the cost which is paid for the petition itself, but the cost of preparing the affidavit, taking it to the commissioner, and the filing of the affidavit. All these things have to be taken into consideration. If one wants to amend a petition, even if this only involves the alteration of just a few words—it may even be something which does not very much affect the substance of the petition itself—one has to prepare another affidavit.

The Attorney-General: No. I said that was not the case. That is a matter which is dealt with by administrative instructions, and has been so dealt with. I thought I had said that.

Mr. Janner: I gather my right hon and learned Friend had said that, but I cannot find it in the Rules.

Mr. Donovan: It is in Rule 14.

Mr. Janner: Rule 14 gives the provision and I gathered from my reading of it that that provision had not been made. It reads:
A petition may be amended without leave before service of the original proceedings, upon filing an affidavit by the Petitioner verifying the new facts alleged.

Mr. J. Foster: Would the hon. Gentleman read Rule 14 (3)?

Mr. Janner: I thought I had fully understood these Rules. In the law I know that one can make a mistake, and I thought, when my right hon. and learned Friend interrupted, that perhaps I had made a mistake. But I have not done so The petitioner has to swear another affidavit. This means that the petitioner has to go to the solicitor's office, the solicitor has to prepare a fresh affidavit, the affidavit has to be taken to a commissioner, and the commissioner has to be paid. If the amendment is made before the petition has been served, it appears that one no longer has to apply for leave to make the amendment.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Would my hon. Friend read Rule 14 (3) and (4)?

Mr. Janner: Yes, in a moment. If the petition has been served, however, the petitioner has to go through a long procedure again. He must file an affidavit for leave to amend, and then there is all the procedure of amending the petition to be gone through again. I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is so naive as to believe that all the saving of expense to which I have referred, even with regard to the ordinary petition and the amending of a petition, will come within the compass of that small reduction of three guineas. In addition, there are a number of other matters which ought to be referred to and which, I hope, will be taken into consideration. We ought to dispense entirely with the affidavit in support of the petition. We ought to dispense entirely with affidavits in relation to the amending of the petition. If an appearance is entered, and if the respondent states in his appearance that he is not going to defend the Amendment. I can see no need for the waste of another fortnight before setting the suit down for trial. It is not merely a question of a waste of time in this respect. It creates other delays and expense. With regard to the proceedings in

relation to directions, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider that question. I am sorry to have to talk in technical terms, but it is essential that we should know the procedure. It is simply not understood by a layman. In the King's Bench Division one goes to the court and asks the Master to direct what steps shall be taken in the action, where the case shall be heard and what documents are to be produced. He asks whether there are to be many or few witnesses—I am trying to put it into as simple language as I possibly can—he decides how long the case is likely to last, and whether it does or does not require a jury. All those things are done in one hearing. As I understand the position, the committee recommended that that type of proceeding should be adopted with regard to divorce proceedings. And why not, instead of having four or five, or less summonses, each of which costs 5s., with an additional 5s. for a duplicate which has to be served? A clerk has to go down to the court each time the summons has to be issued and served All these things, which take up time and money, could be avoided. In my opinion we should have very quick action—interlocutory proceedings, which would lead to a very quick trial and would obviate much of the expense that is at present incurred. My right hon. and learned Friend turns aside somewhat lightly the costs of nullity, because nullity proceedings are proceedings of a specific nature. If proceedings are not going to be defended, why on earth should the petitioner be put to the expense of £15? In my view, the recommendations of the committee should have been accepted in this respect. They would have curtailed expenses and also saved time.
There is one other comment I wish to make. We are not considering the question whether divorce should be made easier or otherwise. What we are asking is, that once divorce procedings have been commenced we must have a procedure which will enable those proceedings to be carried through as speedily as possible, and with as little expense as possible. There is no reason at all why the other recommendations which will be accepted should not be immediately incorporated into an Order, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the learned Attorney-General that that will be done very speedily, so that we may be able to assure the country that proceedings will not take


the length of time they are taking at present. Even with these new Rules they will take as long as—

The Attorney-General: Four weeks.

Mr. Janner: Indeed not. That period does not include interlocutory proceedings. It will mean another week, or two, or possibly three weeks' delay in various steps before anything effective is done with regard to setting down for trial. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he cannot immediately get the other recommendations introduced into an Order.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. Bing: After the very able and exhaustive speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) it is almost an impertinence for anyone to attempt to add anything to it. But I think I am a sufficiently bad lawyer to be able to sum up. If you make justice so expensive, you deny justice altogether. I think I am right in saying there was evidence before the Denning Committee which made it quite clear that, despite what the learned Attorney-General has said, the cost of a divorce petition could be brought down to £40 or £50. The reason is very technical, and I will not go into it now. I only wish I were in the position of the learned Attorney-General, and could say I would circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOR T. Not being in that position, perhaps he will let me write to him—if I may be allowed to use the other gambit of the Front Bench—and give him the details.
We are concerned here with a rulemaking authority. There has been a great deal of skirting round this problem, and perhaps we are not approaching it in quite the right way. The problem we ought to be considering is the position of the people who comprise the rulemaking authorities. If, indeed, there are comprised in such authorities people who are completely out of tune with ideas of our time, then this is not a personal question. It is a question of whether we ought not to have at the head of this branch of the Judiciary someone more in tune with the age. I rose just to say to the learned Attorney-General that if the situation develops, as it appears to be developing at the moment, will it be possible for time to be given for such hon.

Members who may think fit to put down an Address in the usual form? I do not want to say more than that now. It would be improper for me to do so.

Mr. Donovan: In view of the sympathetic nature of the Attorney-General's reply and the assurance given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — FLOODING, SALFORD (ASSISTANCE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Collindridge.]

1.21 a.m.

Mr. McAdam: In view of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not propose to keep the House long on this Adjournment Motion. On 20th September, the River Irwell burst its bank, with the result that within an area of 600 acres, 6,120 small dwellings were flooded. The exact damage is estimated at the present time at more than £500,000. On three separate occasions I have raised this matter in the House by means of a Question to the Prime Minister, which was ultimately transferred to the Minister of Agriculture but not reached, with the result that I had to content myself with a written reply. Then came a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the assistance which the Exchequer is prepared to give in respect of the recent flooding. After hearing his statement I put a Question on what the effect would be on the flooded area of Salford. I received what I considered to be a favourable reply, and followed it up with a further question. In reply to that further question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed sympathy with Salford. I now want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what he is prepared to do for Salford, now that he has had time to consider the question properly.

1.23 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. McAdam) has indicated to the House, just what the difficulty in Salford is. Last September, Salford suffered very heavy flooding, and as a result more than 6,000 houses were damaged. Although I believe that the actual cost of that damage is not known,


and there are various estimates of what it comes to, it must certainly run into six figures. It is true that at that time he approached my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Later he went to the Minister of Health. He was told that it was impossible for either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Health to do anything, because legislation would be required if a grant of the kind which he wanted were to be made.
During the winter, as we are all aware, considerable flooding took place in the Fen District, and a great deal of damage was done. In addition to the flooding, livestock suffered through heavy falls of snow, and my right hon. Friend announced that the Government would make a grant to the Lord Mayor's Fund—then about to be opened—of a million pounds. In addition, the Government later agreed to give help to those who had been stricken by the severe winter and floods. My right hon. Friend did make it clear that, although he sympathised with the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford and with the plight of the people in that area, it was quite impossible to date back, as it were, the help to be given to the victims of the floods and the heavy snow of the winter to something which happened seven or eight months ago in the city of Salford.
I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend and those associated with him, including the Town Clerk of Salford, have made an application for assistance to the Lord Mayor of London and to the committee which has been set up, giving the fullest possible particulars of the distress which has been caused and the damage which has been done in that city. I understand that the Lord Mayor and his committee considered this matter yesterday afternoon, and I am delighted to think that whilst they feel that the fund must first of all be used for the purpose for which it has been, and is being raised, namely, to assist those who have suffered more recently than Salford, nevertheless, it is hoped that, when demands on the fund arising from the recent flooding in the Fens and other similar districts have been met, something may be done to help Salford and any other areas which are in the same situation. I think my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford can take heart from this, for it does follow

that if the Lord Mayor has invited Salford, as I understand he has, to make another application a little later in the year, he would not have done so unless he felt that there was every hope that Salford will get some assistance from the distress fund.
As I have indicated, it is, unfortunately, impossible for the Government itself without legislation to help Salford in the circumstances, but there is the Lord Mayor's Fund. People all over the country have made contributions to this fund and a sum which I believe is now fairly considerable has been collected. It is, therefore, my hope that in the light of the promise made by the Lord Mayor to the City of Salford, it will get much needed help from this fund. I hope that my hon. Friend will be willing to leave the matter there, feeling certain that, before this year is out, Salford may get the assistance she so badly needs.

1.29 a.m.

Mr. Hardy: I rise to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Mr. McAdam) in regard to the flooding in that city. I am very disturbed at the treatment that has been meted out to that city. I should like to remind the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the flooding was not caused by the people themselves; neither they nor the City Council were responsible for it. Those who suffered as a result of the flooding were respectable working-class people, many of whom lost much, including their furniture, bedding and clothing. It was very regrettable that we could not persuade representatives of the Government to go into the district and see the conditions that were existing at that particular time. All we were able to do was to talk to Members of the Government who were very sympathetic; in fact, we began to think they were going to dole out sympathy in buckets. They gave us sympathy but no practical help at all, and it made me think it was like serving gravy without any meat. The excuse was made that legislation in this House was so heavy that they could not promote legislation to deal with a case like Salford. But six months afterwards they found a way out; they decided to hand over the sum of a million pounds to the Lord Mayor's Fund rather than face up to their responsibilities so far as the ratepayers and City Council of Salford were concerned.
I want to remind the Financial Secretary and hon. Members of this House that these people who were so badly affected have had to subscribe towards this million pounds by direct and indirect taxation. One had to be there to see the misery these people were suffering, and I sincerely hope that the Government will do as much as they possibly can to persuade those who are controlling the Lord Mayor's Fund to be as generous as possible. I am rather disturbed to think we may have to wait for months, and there may be nothing in the "kitty" at that time if they are going to deal in a generous way with the other victims. The city of Salford has never paraded its poverty, though it could have pleaded years and years ago that it was a distressed area. Its rates are 22s. in the pound, and we have faced up to our responsibilities for many years. We feel that we have made our case for the Government not only to show sympathy, but to do a little more than that and give us as much assistance as they possibly can.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Royle: just to complete the team work so far as Salford is concerned, I would like one minute during which to speak on this matter. I want to confirm the statements that have been made by my colleagues, the hon. Members for North Salford (Mr. McAdam) and South Salford (Mr. Hardy), about the state of affairs resulting from the floods in that district. We are very deeply concerned and worried because nothing has been done by the Government towards the alleviation of these troubles. I found great comfort in the Financial Secretary's words, and I think that as a result we have a hope we had not before this Adjournment Debate tonight. I sincerely express the opinion that as a result of the statement made by the Financial Secretary we shall, in due course, receive something that the city of Salford so badly needs. We thank him very much.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to Two o' Clock.